UKH

From the Guardian.......The point is, there is a way to deal with these questions which, given Corbyn’s record of activism, will keep coming. It will require precision and candour, rather than I-didn’t-inhale formulations such as “I was present but not involved”, especially when the pictures say otherwise.

Chiefly, it will mean honestly admitting that when he attended events like this one – and this goes for his history in Northern Ireland too – he was not there as some neutral peace broker, as he now suggests, but as a vocal supporter of one side against the other. He was not an intermediary in either Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland: if he had been, he would have been scrupulous about meeting all sides, which he never did, and expressing either no solidarity with any side or plenty with all of them, which was also not his way.

Instead, in Israel/Palestine his position was not that of a healing conciliator of two warring peoples, but rather “to eradicate Zionism”, to cite the stated goal of the Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine of which he was a sponsor. In Northern Ireland, he was for republicanism and against unionism, taking part for example in a 1987 ceremony to honour not all victims of terrorism, but eight IRA gunmen killed by the SAS. As he put it at the time: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”

Not while Boris Johnson is an MP, no.

T.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/1476_big.jpg

Much as I'm no Corbyn fan, it's clear he has quite some way to go to rank among the frontrunners for your thread title honour. Best place to look would be either Trump or those who actively defended the 350m bus fiasco.

Not even close. He has his flaws and I suspect labour would do better under someone else but he seems fundamentally a decent person. You don't mention any specific clear cut lies? If there are any let's hear them. 

If you're involved in peace deals, talks or cease fire negotiations you will have contact with either one side or both. Having met or talked to people with extreme views doesn't mean he shares them. I'm in favour of anyone who helps move things towards peace.

I'd suggest misleading a nation and ruining the relationship with its biggest economic trading partner for your own personal gain to be worse than anything Corbyn has done. 

I very much doubt it.

No, Boris Johnson is. Corbyn is better described as "economical with the truth".

He seems exceptionally inept at explaining what he really does think, almost as if he doesn't want to tell us too much. So perhaps "tongue-tied with evading the truth" might be a more accurate description.

As increasingly grim as the reality looks, I console myself that at least I don’t know what awful mistakes Corbyn would have made instead had he the chance.

Oh I think Jeremy, without actually slapping his cards on the table, has given a flavour of where his sympathy lies.... and such, in the unexpected rise to leadership those sympathies have now become inconvenient to his further ambitions. And rightly so. He's never helped any division move toward peace. It's just bleating protest. Weak and ineffectual.

It's all a bit titt-for-tatt. I guess this thing has been going on since the dawn of man but it does seem particularly pronounced these days; right wingers pretend to be outraged by a pretty innocuous event attended by Corbyn, left wingers get their own back by pretending to be outraged by pretty innocuous statements by Boris...the Guardian improves it's revenue by promoting the outrage. And so the cycle goes.

Is the punchline on it's way ?

Yep

"He's never helped any division move toward peace. It's just bleating protest. Weak and ineffectual."

I don't know enough about his history with Israel/Palestine to comment. But on Northern Ireland he seems to have always condemned violence. 

"I didn’t support the IRA. I don’t support the IRA. What I want everywhere is a peace process" is what he said recently and as far as I can see nothing in his history contradicts that. 

It took a long time to get people to step away from the "armalite and the ballot box" approach and to a purely political approach (even if Stormont is not currently working). I think anyone speaking out in favour of peace has helped and continues to help. 

Incompetent is how I'd describe him.

To the OP: where's that 350m a week again? Corbyn is nothing like the worst liar in politics. 

When you have an electorate who are split roughly 50/50 on just about any topic of public concern, no politician is ever going to speak their mind freely for fear of alienating the wrong half.  I admire Corbyn's integrity in the same way that I admired Ken Livingstone's integrity but unfortunately both subscribe to the ideas of the half that our manipulative media don't like.

I suspect he would have tried to go ahead with the whole shambles under some misguided "will of the people" ideal. But I don't he would have done any better or much worse than May. Any politician trying to negotiate a deal as daft and damaging as Brexit is going to come out looking useless. 

Bearded, vegetarian, rides a bicycle, for goodness sake the man doesn't even have a telly! He's worse than Hitler.

Relatively competent as a leader - yes.  Doing a good job - no, its a f*cking disaster

I'm doing what most people do and voting for the party and candidate represents my views best.  Unfortunately my lot are also leaderless so its a pretty wasted vote.  I'm under no illusions about my own ability to be an MP.

Agreed.  He's not the worst and he's also not the best liar by a long chalk.

Much of today's media does seem to thrive on manufactured outrage. A shame really, as there is so much to be genuinely outraged about (or very concerned / worried), things that should transcend left / right political interests.

I don't think he's worse than Hitler, but he does appear to share some of Hitler's views on Jews as the recent public outrage at him holding a wreath fro the Munich Terrorists demonstrates.

I think you may be confusing his view on Israel and it's actions with his view on Jews as a whole. 

No, because, In 2014, Jeremy Corbyn was pictured holding a wreath in front of a plaque commemorating three Palestinians – including Salah Khalaf, who Israel says was linked to the 1972 Munich massacre. Now he's unable to admit that and he and his spokesmen are lying about it. He should resign as he is a disgrace, for 3 reasons, he supports terrorists, seems very anti-semitic, and he is unable to tell the truth about his actions when he gets caught out. 

In what way does he seem anti-Semitic rather than anti-Israel? There's no suggestion he supports terrorists unless you're relying on Daily Mail headlines being factual rather than self indulgent propaganda;

"The Labour leader has said he visited the cemetery to honour innocent people killed in a 1985 Israeli air strike.

But he has faced criticism because the event took place near memorials for people who were accused of having links to a terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympic Games".

The same ceremony was attended by a Tory peer and a Liberal Democrat peer. This is pure tabloid manipulation, the likes of which has been used to dupe mass swathes of the population for years, including yourself it seems. But you believe what you like. If he has to resign for this, you might as well include all of the current government cabinet and large proportions of all parties. 

No it wasn't.  They were reported as attending the conference, not the ceremony.  If you are going to accuse others of being taken in by headlines at least get your own facts straight!

I stand corrected on that point. My other points remain. I don't believe he was there supporting terrorists and I don't believe he is an anti-Semite no matter which definition you want to use.  

I think they are both having problems remembering whether or not they attended the wreath laying ceremony.

Not surprising really.

Well you are now it to "belief", rather than facts.  Many reasonably believe he is at best unduly sympathetic to some very unsavoury characters.   IRA meetings, talking about his friends in Hamas  and Hezbollah, this cemetery business.

Many UK politicians had meetings with the IRA and the cemetery business is speculation depending on whose story you want to believe. What do you know for sure?  

Well Lord Sheikh has said  “If there was a wreath-laying ceremony I was not aware of the wreath-laying ceremony. I did not go to the ceremony.”  Haven't seen an explicit denial from the Lib Dem chap, but neither has his attendance been reported.

Did they?  Certainly not in the same manner or making the same sympathetic noises.

Some things. Others are uncertain.   FWIW my best guess is he didn't actually know who was in the cemetery at the time but his view of any Palestinian event as unquestionably "good" resulted in him being there and (clearly) involved.  His behaviour since this has come to light speaks volumes.

Taken together Corbyn's history, evasiveness, highly questionable judgement, and shear incompetence make me think he is totally unsuited to leading.

There is difference between a meeting to discuss a way ahead and set the foundations that an agreement could be built on and meeting on a friendly or sympathetic manner at one of their rallies showing support for their cause and never speaking against their actions.

He is and was always very carefully with his words. He would say I support peace, not war as a general broad brush global sense, but never has he directly condemned the actions of the ira or hamas for a specific event. He is as slippery as any other politician. 

He is as slippery as any other politician. 

This maybe so, but people seem to want to crucify him for acting in such a way at the same time as accepting it for others. 

There is a photograph of Jeremy with his hands on the wreath, he is unable to deny he was laying a wreath for the terrorists, it's not normal to lay a wreath and not be able to remember who it was for unless of course he is also so insincere when he lays wreaths that it means nothing to him. You seem a bit naive mate, how much more evidence do you need? His lack of denial speaks volumes.

There's a picture with his hands on A wreath. What that wreath was being laid for is speculation by anyone who wasn't there, including you. Your accusations seem lifted straight from the most gutter press articles around. You obviously have an opinion of Corbyn which you are more than entitled to, but what you know for sure regarding the rhetoric you're spouting is minimal. 

If a tory or lib dem politician had been to meetings with the same groups on a friendly and supportive basis, would Labour MPs sit by and say nothing? Look at the comments following the latest Boris gaff. 

Of course not, but this tit-for-tat in politics is exasperating. Too much energy spent on party politics and not on doing what's best for the country. 

Perhaps if you become a party leader on an honest and open mantra, then be found to flex the truth again and again, you reach the point where everything is questioned. Remember the video on that train... 

Yeah, it seems more beneficial to be dubious constantly.

I don't know what it is. Either him or his aids think everyone are idiots. In the modern world if you go online and say the train was full or I was not touching the wreath, you are going to get rumbled. 

Well, Corbyn has admitted why the wreath was laid, it's not being denied by anybody, he was there, so it's not speculation or rhetoric. You need to get with the facts mate. The quote in the OP is from the Guardian,hardly gutter press.

Which quote are you talking about? I don’t even know which article you’re referring to. 

Ah yes, the honest, straight talking man of the people at it again

https://www.channel4.com/news/corbyn-quizzed-on-whether-uk-better-off-outsi...

It is clear to me that Corbyn is a highly intelligent and sociable individual who takes a political position that is entirely consistent with the social democratic mainstream of western European political life. He knows what semitic means and he knows what zionist means. 

The right-wing media have decided that it is in the interests of their masters that you should all ignore those obvious traits of Corbyn's and believe that he is the devil incarnate instead of someone who wants to deliver a prosperous and satisfying life for everyone in in the UK. 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

The recent public outrage does not demonstrate that he shares some of Hitler's views on Jews - you would have to be a total f*cking idiot to believe that, wouldn't you?

Or a troll. I don’t think he’s stupid, so my guess is this. Best just ignored. A string of ‘provocative’ OPs from him that garner zero replies would send a clear message. 

While Teresa May, the disgraced Liam Fox, David Davies, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, and Michael Gove exist then no, no he isn't.

That rather depends if you believe his stated reasons for meeting up with the various people he met up with when he was a backbencher.
I don't believe he was ever an active supporter of the political aims of those people.  However, I certainly don't believe that he was trying to broker a peace deal, etc. which is what he has said in retrospect when forced to explain why he met such people.  So, to me, he probably is one of most dishonest politicians in front line politics at the current moment.  

I have no reason not to believe Corbyn. He's been a prominent anti racism campaigner for years so why would I not believe him? The Tories and the Brexiters in particular spout definite provable lies every day. 

What's being a prominent anti racism campaigner got to do with him meeting the likes of Sinn Féin/the IRA and in particular, his stated reasons for meeting them?
As for believing him, some will and some won't.  I personally think he's lying through his teeth when he says he was trying to set up peace deals, etc. in the likes of Ireland and the Middle East.

But he hasn't. He's been a prominent campaigner for various causes such as Palestine but not notably against racism. 

Because he is shifty testy when questioned and been shown to lie quite often now. 

True. 

That's a false dichotomy, and so he's not "lying through his teeth". I don't believe he's neutral on either issue, but I certainly do not believe that he wanted to keep either in a state of war (which you imply). In both cases, he was seeking a solution to the conflict that did not trample upon the needs of the side he saw as the oppressed. That's his ideology: he will side with those he believes are mistreated by those with power. "Opposed to peace" is a ridiculous way to frame his positions, and simply doesn't ring true.

As for "terrorist sympathiser", when people hear the likes of Assad or Putin label their opponents as "terrorists" in order not to have to justify opposition to their cause, does it not stick in people's throats a bit when they themselves try the same shit, unconvincing trick closer to home? It's perfectly possible to condemn terrorist tactics while supporting the rights of the larger population the terrorists are claiming to fight for (of course, using terrible tactics that target innocent people is in general no help to anyone).

Where have I said that he was opposed to peace?
Rather, I'm saying that his reasons for the meetings in question were not ones where Corbyn himself was attempting to set up peace talks, etc. and in that respect, I believe he is actually lying when he says that was the reason for those meets.
As for the real reason for those meets?  I think it's little more than he could and in doing so, felt he was getting one over on the UK Government/Establishment - basically acting like the student type activist that has been the mainstay of his political career until very recently

That's what you imply by saying that when he says he's trying to achieve peace and you say he's "lying through his teeth". If you mean that there was more to his motivation than he states, then say that, because that's not "lying through his teeth". If you're going to accuse others of being slippery, perhaps you should make more effort to be clear and accurate yourself? 

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any real sense. Do you honestly believe he isn't interested in the politics of those issues, his chief motivation is to upset the establishment? Your position is not remotely credible. He's clearly a passionate campaigner who always sides with those who are disenfranchised. You don't have to agree with him, just disagree with him honestly! 

You forgot "and utter" as well as "deliberately wicked and disingenuous."

I'm sure that Corbyn would truly love a world where there is peace and that he is more than willing to discuss such issues with whomever will engage him in such conversations.
However, in the meetings he's had with the likes of Sinn Féin/the IRA, I don't believe that was on his agenda and for him to now say that he was engaging in peace talks is why I think he is blatantly lying about his motivation for such meetings.
 

I might have over egged the 'upset the establishment' bit and I'm fairly sure he had what he believed were meaningful discussions in those meetings.  However, to reiterate what I've already said, I don't believe for one minute that he discussed anything about peaceful resolutions and that is why I think he is lying when he says that was what he was doing. 

The key problem is that if he was trying to help with peace, why does he only seem to ever meet with one side?  When he visited Israel and Palestine he did not meet with a single Israeli Jew. As someone said, he has probably met more killers of Israelis than Israelis themselves.

search “Definition Politician” and you get US definition “A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.”

take every manifesto produced in the last 50 years say and see what has actually been delivered by all parties.  

Consider The Brexit Farce- how many changed their tunes to suit there own back pockets! hmm. Light blue touch paper and stand well back 

consider even local politics 

You may have guessed I have know time for politics/politicians with maybe the very odd exception 

This is demonstratively not true, the simplist of google searches will provide information about him supporting a wide range of causes against racism. There is a very famous picture for example of him being arrested outside South Africa House in the early 80s.

I think it just reinforces the fact he is a politician of protest. A million things to complain about, but incapable of stepping forward, of leading and making better things happen. 

I don't think that makes him a notable anti-racist campaigner.  It's just another of his serial protests that incidentally had black/white politics inherent to it.

Does he only ever meet with one side or is this an assumption?

Another observation. I suspect many politicians have met more killers of Palestinians than Palestinians themselves. What does that make them?