Corbyn Briefed Communist Spies in Cold War

I heard it was the day after his mother died? I must be getting confused with dates. Also a note, I haven't seen Corbyns “rant” be played on any of the major news networks. I only heard it on Nigel Farages show on LBC. Peston said it was because he refused to give interviews.

BBC played it.

So far, what we know about this story:

1. Czech officials have confirmed that Corbyn was not a spy or an agent, nor did he supply secrets, nor was he paid.

2. German officials have confirmed that there is no Stasi file on Corbyn, despite right wing commentators criticising Corbyn for not releasing the file...

3. The 'spy' at the centre of this claimed that Corbyn told him what Thatcher had for breakfast and that he also organised LiveAid

4. The spy claims to have met Corbyn on a day when there is video evidence that Corbyn was at a conference in Chesterfield.

On the BBC point fair enough I’ll take your word for it.

On the other points, we knew Corbyn wasn’t a spy and that this chap wasn’t the most reputable source. Why anyone would think Corbyn knew (or cared) what Thatcher had for breakfast is beyond me.

On point 4 I would just like to say that it isn’t possible that Corbyn could be in 2 places during 1 day. Although the other points rather debunk the theory he was giving away state secrets to a spy.

A quick question for you though? Do you have the same opinion on the Farage meeting Assange stories that have been in the Guardian before?

So what you're saying is that while he was publicly critisising Czech totalitarianism (although, let's be honest, not so strongly as most) he was privately cozying up to Czech diplomats/spies and praising the Soviet Union to them.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

The press are always sensationalist, they need to sell papers and it is a story which has generated a lot of public interest. But it's hard to see where the press have actually lied here at all. Drawn strong inferences, perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing.

I specifically said press. If you can find any instances where they have actually done this I'm all ears, because I haven't seen it.

From what I've seen the bloke said Corbyn was paid for secrets, and the press reported it as such. Even if (as seems likely) that turns out to be untrue, it is categorically not the press making up lies.



Let's be clear, it is established that he was a Czech spy, even if you believe Corbyn thought was a diplomat. Even if he had been a diplomat, as others have said, communist diplomats were hardly cuddly figures. They were, at best, agents of a brutal totalitarian state, and not the sort of person a patriotic Brit and future prime minister should be cozying up to.

I will not deny some people have behaved like absolute cretins about this story. But, can you seriously not see why a Labour leader meeting a spy from a totalitarian, communist country for some friendly chats may suggest, to some people, that his opinions veered beyond cuddly CND nonsense?



I'm not denying the moral problems the right has here. I suggest they are fewer than the left, but this is a perfectly valid argument to have.

But what you cannot do is simultaneously critisise the Tories every time they talk to a questionable government through diplomatic channels and then get all upset when we dare to point out Corbyn's predilection for terrorists or totalitarian regimes. Because it makes you look like a hypocrite who sees all these issues through red-tinted specs.



But we have a very competitive newspaper industry. The free press means we are all free to consume news from whatever news outlets we want without government interference. If people choose to buy papers owned by Murdoch or the Barclay brothers then that is an essential democratic right which any true liberal should stand up for.

It is almost impossible to dissociate attacking a newspaper from attacking its readers. You cannot hate the Mail without hating Mail readers. You cannot ban the Sun without trampling over the liberties of its willing customers.

Yawn.

This is actually pretty simple, politicians who cozy up to 'diplomats' from brutal regimes cannot be surprised when their allegiances are questioned. Why are you so incapable of conceding this? Why should the press work on the assumption everything is above board?

As for the rampant whataboutery about Saudi Arabia and the like, this is just a distraction attempt. I will address this once and only once just to point the glaring differences. For one, this is not a left-right issue as Labour governments have followed the same pragmatic foreign policy. Secondly, literally none of these people think the Saudis are nice people or particularly want to have to deal with them. They just think they're better than the (dire) alternatives in the region and fancy that they're practicing realpolitik. I'm not a big "the end justifies the means" fan, but you can't deny they're looking out for what they believe to be Britain's interests.

By contrast Corbyn has consistently shown sympathy and support for this country's enemies. There is barely a dictatorship he would not be prepared to praise if it stood in opposition to the hated West. From Hamas to Iran, from Russia to the IRA, he has made allies with dreadful, dreadful people. And for what? What reason could he possibly have for consistently supporting people who hate Britain?

What concerns me is the way the left are increasingly trying to justify controlling the press. The media is a very competitive arena. Murdoch and his ilk cannot force their opinions into unsuspecting bystanders. They have influence only because more people would rather buy their papers than the Guardian. The left has always hated the freedom to choose things they disapprove of.

You people also have no sense of irony. Corbyn is angered by claims he supported a totalitarian state, and responds by threatening to crack down on papers which oppose him.

You are repeating yourself. As I have said, it is really very simple. A potential prime minister simply attending meetings with a communist spy during the cold war is a scandal. And if you don't see it that way, many people do.

And, by the way, the press are entirely entitled to raise questions which need to be answered. That is literally their job, to ask difficult questions of politicians. I do think he has questions to answer. If he is happy to hang around with communist 'diplomats' then the rest of the StB files don't seem far fetched at all. To remind you, these are the files which claimed he said positive things about the Warsaw pact and negative things about NATO during those meetings which he has confirmed he attended, which is entirely believable. This is not the later claims of the spy himself, which are decidedly sketchier. And to be honest if Corbyn responds by threatening a press crackdown that hardly screams innocence.

Talking about the IRA/Hamas/Venezuela/Iran/Russia/Cuba is not a distraction. It speaks to the same despicable part of his character. What is potentially damaging to him about this is that it just adds more flesh to a narrative that many people already believe. And this is why he is so angry.

The government placing controls on who may own/control/edit newspapers would strike at the heart of the free press, one of the absolute most essential factors of a democratic society. It just does. You can rationalise this by saying you don't like the owners all you want, but it is outrageously anti-democratic.

And so what if they push an agenda? It's not illegal to put across your political views (yet). And, frankly, the ability of press moguls to manipulate is way overstated. People buy papers which they find they tend to agree with, and the papers desperately try to give the punters what they want. If Murdoch converted to Corbynism tomorrow and decided to push it hard in his papers, a big chunk of the sort of people who read the Sun would just get irritated and stop buying the Sun.

Come off it. On the one hand we have senior politician meeting a representative of a country, through official channels, and even if we may question the morality (and people do) everyone is clear they're trying to work for the best interests of the UK. On the other we have a notoriously anti-West backbencher meeting commie spies in back rooms. Apples and oranges, my friend.

I haven't read the Daily Mail on this, can you point me towards where they claim knowledge of his Stasi report?

You cannot seriously claim that the media is an uncompetitive sector, though. There are a number of providers who compete strongly. With the advent of the internet that is even more true. If there is one provider which dominates over all the others, by the way, it is the BBC.

I did not say the press have no influence, but they have influence only because people take their newspapers into their home and choose to trust them. At any moment any person could decide to switch the the Guardian, just by and large they don't, and you hate that.

Do you not also find Corbyn's denunciation of the press more than a little Trumpian?

Look, I obviously have no evidence he knew he was a spy and I have never claimed I have. Do I think it looks dodgy as hell? Yes. Do I think he ought to have known better? Also yes. Do I think the newspapers are absolutely right to ask questions about his past? Yes once again.

You have misunderstood the story. The Germans said they could not find records relating specifically to Corbyn, by name. If there were, he would have to sign a release form. These are files which have already been released which refer to a group of which (although he is not mentioned by name) Corbyn was one of the leaders. Different thing. No lies here.

So would you be in favour of the UK's biggest media empire being broken up, the BBC?

Anti-competition laws affect the situation where a company or group of companies use their significant market power to increase profits. There is no media provider in the UK (other than the BBC) whose market power is particularly great, and profits remain low. A lot of the large newspapers are losing money, hardly the hallmark of an oligopoly. And indeed you point out the threat to traditional media from online, which further highlights the competitiveness of the sector.

I am a big believer that the newspapers reflect their readership. I mean, Murdoch is a Brexit supporter but there is a reason the Sun backed it and the Times didn't. Even with the Mail, the Daily Mail backed Brexit and the MoS was very strongly against it. The owner of the Mail was pro-remain, but Dacre (Daily Mail editor) basically told him to **** off. I really fail to see the evidence that these moguls are efficiently enforcing their opinions on an unwilling populace.

With these Corbyn stories for instance, not everyone is as eye-rolling as you and they are being lapped by a certain chunk of people. They're doing it because it sells copy.



I will certainly say some Tories have overreacted. We can agree on that. And it's a pity because there is a serious point here and it's just become a complete circus.

I've seen that. Who the hell are these 15% of Mail readers who vote Labour? My guess is husbands who let their wives deal with the newspaper bill.

But really, to me, that's another thing that chips away at the idea that readers are these easily-manipulated sheeple types.

a Labour leader meeting a spy from a totalitarian, communist country for some friendly chats may suggest, to some people, that his opinions veered beyond cuddly CND nonsense?

If people choose to buy papers owned by Murdoch or the Barclay brothers then that is an essential democratic right which any true liberal should stand up for.

I think that's a very biased portrait of Thatcher... there is no doubt that Thatcher was intent on furthering British interests.

Corbyn was a Soviet-sympathising radical who supported every anti-British cause going... that does not absolve Corbyn.

There are multiple examples where editors have gone against the wishes of their owners on major policy stances. The Times backed remain when Murdoch supported Brexit, the Daily Mail backed leave despite the owner allegedly putting pressure on Dacre to back remain.

I think that's a very biased portrait of Thatcher but, whatever, my new principle is not to engage on whatabaoutery, which is just a bad line of argument intended to distract from the issue at hand.

But lets say for a moment that all that were true, there is no doubt that Thatcher was intent on furthering British interests. Corbyn was a Soviet-sympathising radical who supported every anti-British cause going. This is the context in which him hanging out with communist agents is not surprising. And even if Thatcher did do morally dubious things that does not absolve Corbyn. One would think the lefty messiah should be able to be held to a higher standard, no?



There are multiple examples where editors have gone against the wishes of their owners on major policy stances. The Times backed remain when Murdoch supported Brexit, the Daily Mail backed leave despite the owner allegedly putting pressure on Dacre to back remain.

This country already has amongst the strongest libel laws in the world (arguably too strong). Newspapers cannot just do what they want with impunity. I think it would be dreadful if, as Leveson suggests, we end up in a situation where some quango gets final say over what newspapers should and shouldn't be able to say. You bring up MPs expenses, which is an excellent example of investigative reporting which could easily have been brushed under the carpet if editors had been worried about the political and regulatory heat they might cop.

Papers which print falsehoods damage their reputation, and it seems to many on the left are mainly indignant that people continue to trust the Mail and Sun in such large numbers. I mean, the Mirror prints some rubbish too, but somehow that never generates the same outrage.

There is massive doubt that Thatcher was intent on furthering British interests. How is it in our interests to support a fascist dictator in Chile, any more than it would have been to support a Communist state in Czechoslovakia? It clearly wasn't in our long-term interests to support apartheid in South Africa, or the shooting of IRA suspects in Ireland.
If Corbyn had a part in bringing peace in Northern Ireland (and John Major can take a large part of the credit for this) how is that anti-British? Is it anti-British to stop British troops being killed in the streets? How is opposing apartheid anti-British? It was a position supported by the majority of British citizens and enabled the UK to salvage some moral integrity. You say it does not absolve Corbyn. Absolve Corbyn of what? Openly discussing apartheid with someone who turned out to be a Czech agent, and explaining his dislike of the Tory party? That's all he's been found guilty of. Hardly a crime, and certainly not something that requires forgiveness.


For an in-depth study of Brexit reporting, try here http://oxfordstudent.com/2016/05/29/oxford-newspaper-study-finds-pro-brexit-bias/
"45% of national newspaper articles were pro-Brexit in the two months after 20 February, while 27% have been in favour of remaining in the EU. A further 19% were mixed and 9% took no position...The Times was “relatively evenly balanced … with a slight preponderance of pro-Leave articles”. "UK politicians were quoted 36% of the time in articles on the referendum, but the mix was far from balanced. 69% of them were Conservative, and only 14% were from Labour"

The UK does have strong libel laws, which are sometimes abused, but they do not apply to organisations. This means that outright lies can be printed against an organisation such as the EU with the only consequence being the need to print a tiny correction later on. Here's the one for their front page article I mentioned earlier. It was printed on the bottom corner of page 2.

"OUR 21 October headline “Brussels: UK’s 600,000 benefit tourists is no problem” was not accurate. There is no evidence of 600,000 “benefit tourists” in the UK. Neither has the European Commission said this would be no problem."

Well no, I have not said that. If something is libelous then you have always been able to get redress in the courts.

Well, you're absolutely right it's political. Of course I believe Thatcher was good for Britain and Corbyn would be bad and I'm not ashamed of making that argument. The fact that Corbyn repeatedly showed support for (what most people would regard as) Britain's foes is an argument with political legs.

My opinion is generally that the vast majority on the left have good motives, but wrong methods.

The Corbyn/McDonnell/Milne axis I have greater reservations about. I would be genuinely worried if the levers of power ever found their way to their hands, and not in an Ed Milliband—"he'll ruin the energy market!"—sort of way.

There is also a subsection (again, not most) of Momentum members who I think are basically just trouble-makers who have found a cause to attach themselves to.