What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Can honestly say I've not seen him cast doubt on either. It wasn't in his Guardian piece anyway.
Before this attack, i'd be surprised if the majority of the British public could tell you anything about 'porton scientists' let alone be precious on their behalf.
I would be classed as Corbyn supporter but on this he has got it completely wrong in refusing to accept the obvious IMO, this is not risking a world war, as we don't want that, none of our allies want that & neither does Putin despite his regular shows of strength.
We can't just keep letting Russia get away with acting however it likes.
I do still have doubts that the governments of western nations will do the right thing though by hitting Putin & his pals where it really hurts by banning them, their families & their money from being able to enter our nations, give them the pariah treatment and watch them back down.
Aren't we all getting ahead of ourselves. Sure I agree that the most likely explanation is that someone senior in Russia ordered this but why are we ignoring all processes to start accusing nations of state led murder? Surely we have investigations to carry out before we start pointing the finger? Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time we've blamed another country for something based on nothing except our suspicions only for it to turn out to be wrong.
I just don't see what the rush is for all this. carry out the full investigation, find those responsible and bring them to trial. If it turns out the Russian authorities were involved then by all means threaten and impose sanctions, until then why are we so eager to throw the blame around?
It would be exactly the same if they poisoned May with one! But all this is a competition to show who can show the most faux outrage. Follow a process and do it properly. I'm not saying do nothing and nor is Corbyn. You are just putting words into people's mouths if they are not showing the same tendencies that politicians demanded before the invasion of Iraq. Ok, it is more likely the Russian state was behind this than Iraq had WMDs but the point remains. A cold war with Russia helps nobody and it isn't something we should jump into without some care!
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Can honestly say I've not seen him cast doubt on either. It wasn't in his Guardian piece anyway.
Before this attack, i'd be surprised if the majority of the British public could tell you anything about 'porton scientists' let alone be precious on their behalf.
I can't pull out the actual quote on this iPad, , but his reference to Iraq was all about acting on "reliable" evidence from intelligence that turned out to be wrong. No?
And as he knows, it wasn't anyway the intelligence per se but the mendacious way Blair used it.
I dunno. I first heard about Porton Down long before Derek Hales donned a Charlton shirt. I have always understood it to be very highly regarded worldwide. As are our intelligence services.
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You also forget that Munich was in 1938 and that Hitler came to power in 1933 - and awful lot could have been done to stop him before waving useless bits of paper. It is also forgotten that one of the reasons for establishing the UN and many of the institutions of International Law was to stop the dictators in their tracks before they moved to force, against others and their own people.
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Can honestly say I've not seen him cast doubt on either. It wasn't in his Guardian piece anyway.
Before this attack, i'd be surprised if the majority of the British public could tell you anything about 'porton scientists' let alone be precious on their behalf.
I can't pull out the actual quote on this iPad, , but his reference to Iraq was all about acting on "reliable" evidence from intelligence that turned out to be wrong. No?
And as he knows, it wasn't anyway the intelligence per se but the mendacious way Blair used it.
I dunno. I first heard about Porton Down long before Derek Hales donned a Charlton shirt. I have always understood it to be very highly regarded worldwide. As are our intelligence services.
Like i say, i read his guardian piece but didn't see his bit in the commons. Be keen to see other quotes if they are more damning.
Chilcott criticises both Blair and the intelligence services, separately, to be fair.
I'm sticking with my majority of the British public statement, even if you did know about it. You're obviously an intelligent bloke who makes sure he keeps up to date with what is going on - you most certainly reflect the minority in that and i respect you for it.
It would be exactly the same if they poisoned May with one! But all this is a competition to show who can show the most faux outrage. Follow a process and do it properly. I'm not saying do nothing and nor is Corbyn. You are just putting words into people's mouths if they are not showing the same tendencies that politicians demanded before the invasion of Iraq. Ok, it is more likely the Russian state was behind this than Iraq had WMDs but the point remains. A cold war with Russia helps nobody and it isn't something we should jump into without some care!
And what happened to that process with Livinenko - oh Putin gave the perpetrator a seat in the Russian Duma and a medal for service to Russia.
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You are totally wrong, Ive studied WW2 for 20 + years and your comment above carries no truth whatsoever, except that Hitler may or may not have been nervous, but he did not know how small our armed forces where, except for our Navy, you do know that we built up our war machine late 1938 -1939 following Nevs speech, and even then when we eventually sent the BEF to France (post Poland) the German army and tactics (Blitzkrieg) destroyed us, absolutely smashed us, we didn't even have sub machine guns when we tried to give them a bloody nose FFS, so imagine if Nev had sent us in 1938, imagine if the Battle of Britain had happened in 1938, the Spitfire and Hurricane was still being developed and built, so after smashing us in France, Hitler would have invaded and succeeded, of that there is no doubt, so Nev bought us time, two years if you include the phoney war of 1939, we made hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes, arms etc. arranged the lend lease with the USA for munitions etc, Woolwich worked 24/7. Guess what, partly because he did this, we defended our country against invasion. Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs. Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
Exactly. And now in the era of WMD, the rules are completely different - as a wise computer once said, the only winning move is not to play. There are things that can be done domestically, but the notion of military escalation with Russia is insane
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You are totally wrong, Ive studied WW2 for 20 + years and your comment above carries no truth whatsoever, except that Hitler may or may not have been nervous, but he did not know how small our armed forces where, except for our Navy, you do know that we built up our war machine late 1938 -1939 following Nevs speech, and even then when we eventually sent the BEF to France (post Poland) the German army and tactics (Blitzkrieg) destroyed us, absolutely smashed us, we didn't even have sub machine guns when we tried to give them a bloody nose FFS, so imagine if Nev had sent us in 1938, imagine if the Battle of Britain had happened in 1938, the Spitfire and Hurricane was still being developed and built, so after smashing us in France, Hitler would have invaded and succeeded, of that there is no doubt, so Nev bought us time, two years if you include the phoney war of 1939, we made hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes, arms etc. arranged the lend lease with the USA for munitions etc, Woolwich worked 24/7. Guess what, partly because he did this, we defended our country against invasion. Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs. Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
So you would have supported the policy of neutrality in the Spanish Civil War whch Hitler and Mussolini used to hone their war machines, stood idly by while Hitler occupied the Rhineland and annexed Austria, tut tutted after when the Nazis started passing anti Jewish laws from 1933 onwards, started using concentration camps for their political opponents from 1933 onwards. I'm afraid the longer you appease the more likely war becomes - and you are rightr that it is the kids who suffer.
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You are totally wrong, Ive studied WW2 for 20 + years and your comment above carries no truth whatsoever, except that Hitler may or may not have been nervous, but he did not know how small our armed forces where, except for our Navy, you do know that we built up our war machine late 1938 -1939 following Nevs speech, and even then when we eventually sent the BEF to France (post Poland) the German army and tactics (Blitzkrieg) destroyed us, absolutely smashed us, we didn't even have sub machine guns when we tried to give them a bloody nose FFS, so imagine if Nev had sent us in 1938, imagine if the Battle of Britain had happened in 1938, the Spitfire and Hurricane was still being developed and built, so after smashing us in France, Hitler would have invaded and succeeded, of that there is no doubt, so Nev bought us time, two years if you include the phoney war of 1939, we made hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes, arms etc. arranged the lend lease with the USA for munitions etc, Woolwich worked 24/7. Guess what, partly because he did this, we defended our country against invasion. Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs. Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
So you would have supported the policy of neutrality in the Spanish Civil War whch Hitler and Mussolini used to hone their war machines, stood idly by while Hitler occupied the Rhineland and annexed Austria, tut tutted after when the Nazis started passing anti Jewish laws from 1933 onwards, started using concentration camps for their political opponents from 1933 onwards. I'm afraid the longer you appease the more likely war becomes - and you are rightr that it is the kids who suffer.
Did you actually read my post, it there, its history, its what happened it was proved to be the correct course of action...........jesus....what chance do we have?
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You are totally wrong, Ive studied WW2 for 20 + years and your comment above carries no truth whatsoever, except that Hitler may or may not have been nervous, but he did not know how small our armed forces where, except for our Navy, you do know that we built up our war machine late 1938 -1939 following Nevs speech, and even then when we eventually sent the BEF to France (post Poland) the German army and tactics (Blitzkrieg) destroyed us, absolutely smashed us, we didn't even have sub machine guns when we tried to give them a bloody nose FFS, so imagine if Nev had sent us in 1938, imagine if the Battle of Britain had happened in 1938, the Spitfire and Hurricane was still being developed and built, so after smashing us in France, Hitler would have invaded and succeeded, of that there is no doubt, so Nev bought us time, two years if you include the phoney war of 1939, we made hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes, arms etc. arranged the lend lease with the USA for munitions etc, Woolwich worked 24/7. Guess what, partly because he did this, we defended our country against invasion. Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs. Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
So you would have supported the policy of neutrality in the Spanish Civil War whch Hitler and Mussolini used to hone their war machines, stood idly by while Hitler occupied the Rhineland and annexed Austria, tut tutted after when the Nazis started passing anti Jewish laws from 1933 onwards, started using concentration camps for their political opponents from 1933 onwards. I'm afraid the longer you appease the more likely war becomes - and you are rightr that it is the kids who suffer.
Did you actually read my post, it there, its history, its what happened it was proved to be the correct course of action...........jesus....what chance do we have?
Yes - it completely ignored my point as to how the opportunities to dealing with Hitler existed well before Munich in 1938. There is some truth in the argument that by 1938 that Hitler had been allowed to become too strong that needing some breathing space to prepare for the by then inevitable war made sense - Hitler however came to power in 1933 so the steps to stop him and stop Germany rearming should have started then rather than 1938.
History has been re-written. Like those who voted in Attlee after the war were ungrateful. It is sadly the age of gut reaction and aversion to detail! Blame the immigrants etc... etc... etc... Say take your time and get it right and you get attacked! Of course most people look for a reason to attack Corbyn.
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
What about the threat to Russians and their neighbours? Or doesn't that count?
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
What about the threat to Russians and their neighbours? Or doesn't that count?
It would be exactly the same if they poisoned May with one! But all this is a competition to show who can show the most faux outrage. Follow a process and do it properly. I'm not saying do nothing and nor is Corbyn. You are just putting words into people's mouths if they are not showing the same tendencies that politicians demanded before the invasion of Iraq. Ok, it is more likely the Russian state was behind this than Iraq had WMDs but the point remains. A cold war with Russia helps nobody and it isn't something we should jump into without some care!
And there was me thinking that the lesson of history was that it was appeasement that led to wars rather than keeping the peace.
Please clarify which part of history are you on about, your comment is a bit vague.
Well I am surrounded by 15 million people who if you asked them would answer in unison "Neville fucking Chamberlain", for starters.
Ahh old Nev again...then you dont know your history PA, its well documented that clever Nev was playing for time, he knew Adolf was on the war path, he also know that like now we have a very underfunded war machine, he also knew that Britain was his country and prioritised it above all other countries (quite right. 15 million people in other counties were not his responsibility). There is audio statement at the IWM of a member of his staff who said after 'the peace in our time' speech that Nev said to him, 'get yourself trained if you want to be in the Air Force, war is not far away'. At the time Chamberlain was pilloried for being subservient to Hitler, because he didn't puff his chest out and bang the war drum, but it transpires that he was right. However people dont want to know that because it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Great men make the right decisions for their country not for their party, or what the average bloke in the street thinks he knows.
I don’t know what history you’ve been reading.
It’s well documented the British and French empire could’ve quite easily crushed Germany before they entered czeckoslovakia. In fact, Hitler has said that was when he was most nervous. Chamberlain then got him to sign the Munich agreement that he declared “peace of our time”.
Chamberlain was more naive than anything.
You are totally wrong, Ive studied WW2 for 20 + years and your comment above carries no truth whatsoever, except that Hitler may or may not have been nervous, but he did not know how small our armed forces where, except for our Navy, you do know that we built up our war machine late 1938 -1939 following Nevs speech, and even then when we eventually sent the BEF to France (post Poland) the German army and tactics (Blitzkrieg) destroyed us, absolutely smashed us, we didn't even have sub machine guns when we tried to give them a bloody nose FFS, so imagine if Nev had sent us in 1938, imagine if the Battle of Britain had happened in 1938, the Spitfire and Hurricane was still being developed and built, so after smashing us in France, Hitler would have invaded and succeeded, of that there is no doubt, so Nev bought us time, two years if you include the phoney war of 1939, we made hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes, arms etc. arranged the lend lease with the USA for munitions etc, Woolwich worked 24/7. Guess what, partly because he did this, we defended our country against invasion. Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs. Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
No I'm saying give them a sample and listen to them and make your investigations - whilst trying to ensure there is no repeat through dialogue. i'm saying don't go in all hot headed until you have all the facts. It must be some alternate reality where common sense seems so outrageous!
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
What about the threat to Russians and their neighbours? Or doesn't that count?
Look who's suddenly concerned!
I don't think so - my wife and kids are Russian dual nationals and I first went to Russia over 25 years ago and have spent a lot of time there during the intervening period.
Comments
Before this attack, i'd be surprised if the majority of the British public could tell you anything about 'porton scientists' let alone be precious on their behalf.
I just don't see what the rush is for all this. carry out the full investigation, find those responsible and bring them to trial. If it turns out the Russian authorities were involved then by all means threaten and impose sanctions, until then why are we so eager to throw the blame around?
If Russia poisoned Corbyn with a nerve agent, what would your response be? Let them do it there’s nothing we can do, or be up in arms about it?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..
And as he knows, it wasn't anyway the intelligence per se but the mendacious way Blair used it.
I dunno. I first heard about Porton Down long before Derek Hales donned a Charlton shirt. I have always understood it to be very highly regarded worldwide. As are our intelligence services.
Or do I mean the Piltdown Man? So confused nowadays.
Chilcott criticises both Blair and the intelligence services, separately, to be fair.
I'm sticking with my majority of the British public statement, even if you did know about it. You're obviously an intelligent bloke who makes sure he keeps up to date with what is going on - you most certainly reflect the minority in that and i respect you for it.
Also you need to remember that a lot of the politicians participated in WW1, so they knew what War entails, not what hollywood want you to believe, and not what the useless bastards that we call Politicians now, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs.
It amuses me that most of the people on here who are saying we need to retaliate against Russia (we know how this stuff escalates with a country like Russia) and lets say we go to war (I'm talking non nuclear), are middle aged geezers, who wouldn't get anywhere near the front, Ill tell you who goes, the kids, my kids, my nephews, and I will as would any sensible person, try to avoid that at all costs.
Neville Chamberlain was naive was he, do me a favour.
https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/neville-chamberlain/
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
I’m not being a dick, but genuinely.