Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn spin machine of attack and smear is exposed Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    AlexanderHam


    Speaking of showing solidarity his stance on Syria also really annoys me.

    The Kurds are led politically by a democratic socialist party, yet he shows now inclination to help them defend themselves against a savage medieval cult intent on subjugating them.
    Well if his wishes - ie no air strikes against ISIS - were carried through, most of the Kurds would have been wiped out by now.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Ok lets separate fact from inaccuracy shall we?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The piece is by Heidi Alexander, it is an opinion piece so of course it's from a point of view. And having worked with Corbyn up close, having tried to make it work by serving in his shadow cabinet, she has seen just how completely incompetent he is and that's why she stepped down.
    But what for purpose is that expression written in the guardian? You may believe that it is simply a factual (if opinionated) account of Corbyn's team management. I believe (and it's impossible for this position to be unlikely) that it is a criticism of an opponent, to try and gain support for Owen Smith.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What was innocent, quiet and principled about accepting a £20,000 bung to be a TV shill for a regime that murders gay people and stones women?
    Innocent: by your own personal morality, clearly nothing. He has not violated British law in this action, which means that legally he is innocent, so that adjective is accurate.

    Quiet: has this caused huge media attention? No. Therefore I would use the word quiet in this instance.

    Principled: Quote any of Jeremy Corbyn's principles (from the man himself) that were violated by this action. Then I will listen to you.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    But he won't/can't make any such commitment because he doesn't even think he's done anything wrong.
    He hasn't legally, he has by your moral standards.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He unctuously says "Well, they could have come and talked to me". The reason most of his shadow cabinet resigned (even those on the left who were his strong supporters like Lisa Nandy) is precisely because they couldn't talk to him; one of his shadow ministers had to basically camp outside his office door for three days waiting for a meeting (even though by the standards of opposition leaders he is very inactive and lazy).
    I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. I have already said that he has demonstrated poor managerial qualities, it is very nice of you to back me up, and I appreciate your passion but if this is to be a constructive discussion then we need to get rid of this sort of thing.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He is utterly convinced that he is a persecuted martyr,
    And your evidence of his inner thoughts is where?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    so sanctimious. The reality is that a good man wouldn't do the things he's done, like take £20k from murderers,
    You use both words incorrectly. Jeremy Corbyn did not take, but accept payment. And I would like to see the evidence that multiple members of the payroll department of Press TV have murder convictions.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    or accept the gift of a business class flight from an oil industry lobbyist while proclaiming himself a saint,
    Again, I would love to see that quotation.(from him)
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    or praising the IRA and supporting their terrorist atrocities when by left-wing etiquette Labour Party members owe their solidarity to the non-violent SDLP.
    Again I feel that you generalise. Has he supported the cause of the IRA or the method? (You are going to need quotations there as well)
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    And a good man wouldn't, as he has done, allow a cult of personality to be created around him,
    I doubt any politician would decline that, and I doubt Jeremy had much choice in his following
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    and to disclaim any knowledge while he sics his supporters to attack those who have different opinions (including impliedly supporting deselecting his parliamentary colleagues)
    Knowledge of what? And these attacks you mention? (I would be very impressed if you could link them to him directly
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The people who were absolutely and utterly opposed to him from the start refused to serve so they weren't in the Shadow Cabinet when **** went down in June.
    Oh, so those people had incredible foresight to that "shock" decision over Brexit did they? All of them? And you know that this was their reason do you?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    And those on the moderate wing of the party who did manage to get appointed last september were purged anyway back in January. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of those in the Shadow Cabinet who resigned were on the left of the party, including previously some of his closest allies like Lisa Nandy
    Failing to see your point here.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He will never step aside,
    And you know this for a fact do you? Or is it just your opinion? My opinion: I'm sure he will. Just not for a few years at least. E.g. at the age of 80 when he's in a wheelchair and he's getting booed off stage — that's one scenario where I think he would at least consider it.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    he is clearly thrilled by the sense of power he is feeling.
    Again, evidence required (preferably in quotation form) before you make a statement of that magnitude.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You could see it written on every line of his face when he paraded out of the NEC meeting last month; he was so self-satisfied, patronising and arrogant.
    Isn't it such a coincidence that your interpretation of a facial expression is congruent to your political opinions?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He doesn't think he has done anything wrong or requiring improvement,
    It is difficult to believe that you are aware of his innermost thoughts.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    he is happy to sit on his hands while Momentum hysterically attack anyone who criticises him at all,
    I don't think he is happy with the position he is in right now and I think it will be difficult for you to prove that.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    and the party will continue to implode.
    And what told you that? Your crystal ball? Or the spirits...
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He is so obnoxiously self-absorbed that he is willing to let the Labour Party be destroyed before he stands down
    Ooh, quite an accusation, I hope you have some support for that statement otherwise Jeremy himself might get angry with that one...
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    A principled and innocent man doesn't accept £20,000 to be a TV shill for a regime that murders gay people and stones women.
    In your opinion.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    An honest man does not praise Hamas (an organisation whose charter calls for all Jews worldwide to be killed) as "dedicated to peace and social justice" and then claim he was merely being diplomatic.
    It would be difficult to argue that he was not being diplomatic. And I would like to know what you think he was doing there instead.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    An honest man doesn't dishonestly avoid answering questions,
    You mean like a politician does?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    like when he was asked on Northern Irish radio about his support for IRA violence, and his canned response was to repeatedly and patronisingly say "I condemn all violence, including violence by the British Army".
    Give me a politician that you think is honest and lets see if I can find an example of her or him avoiding a question. Also, when you use an example like that, it can be very misleading to not put the specific question.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    And an honest man doesn't repeatedly lie about his connections to Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.
    Find me the proven connection and the quotation from Jeremy that contradicts it, then we have something to talk about.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Corbyn is greedy, dishonest and hypocritical, in addition to being not very bright
    Ouch. So, what is his IQ? And I've yet to see you prove the dishonest or hypocritical. Greedy is open to interpretation.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Bringing up factual incidents that occurred is not "mud" or a "smear". And yes, pointing out the £20,000 he took from a regime that murders gay people does contradict your claim that he is "innocent, principled and honest".
    Hmm. You have failed in establishing that criteria despite the efforts of @JamesN88 and yourself
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    First, Corbyn has made it very clear he has no intention whatsoever to water anything down, and his personality cult backs him 100%.
    Ok, and that doesn't make him principled, how?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Second, his foreign policy stances demonstrate that he is immoral, that he has given moral succour to the use of violence against civilians.
    By your own standards. Morality is an intensely conplex structure. And as I have previously mentioned. Government foreign policies always have an injection of realism which manifesto pormises or opposition policies lack.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Third, it is because of his support for and associations with terrorists, his sympathy for criminals who used bullets and bombs to terrify the Irish people, and the money he took from fanatical hard right fascists that he will never be in power.
    A lot of opinion there. Still struggling to work out where that goes against my description.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Ever.
    Opinion.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The British people will never elect such a revolting man.
    In your opinion
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I'm a Labour Party member, and if he is still the leader I will abstain at the next election. I refuse to cast a ballot for a party led by such an immoral, stupid, dishonest individual.
    That's nice. I'm glad you got that off your chest, now can we get back to the debate?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    If he can't even convince people in his own party that he is worth supporting,
    I'd say he's done that quite a lot. And is it not this leadership election which establishes which of Jeremy or Owen is the best at convicing his own party that he is worth supporting.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    how on earth is he going to convince the millions of non-Labour voters he has to persuade to vote Labour in order to get the party elected?
    In the same way that every politician tries to? Like: with policies, and criticisms of other parties. At least, I thought that was how they did it...
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He can't.
    Opinion.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    But of course his agenda has nothing to do with winning power;
    Which makes him power-mad, how?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    he knows he is utterly incapable of doing so.
    Again, your psychic abilities amaze me.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    His agenda is first for his supporters to completely take over the Labour Party and silence all dissent,
    And you know this how? Were you blind copied into the E-mails or something?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    and then groom a successor in the long-term.
    Oh really? Who's that then? Michael Foot? Fidel Castro? Kim Jong Un?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    His allies say he is playing the "long game"; I guess when you're an MP it doesn't really matter if we have another 15 years of Tory government (and possibly permanent if he and his gang wrest control of the party; the English won't elect fanatics to government)
    Which is exactly why they voted for Boris, in favour of Brexit along with Nigel Farage and Godffrey Bloom. Yeah, you've really captured the national mood there.

    A lot of passion
    A lot of opinion
    A lot of assertion
    Not a lot of evidence
    Try not to state your beliefs as fact please.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    @AlexanderHam

    "Speaking of showing solidarity his stance on Syria also really annoys me.

    The Kurds are led politically by a democratic socialist party, yet he shows now inclination to help them defend themselves against a savage medieval cult intent on subjugating them."

    If he supported the Kurds then he would have Turkey against him. Going back to what I said about realism, this could never be a governmental foreign policy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I believe (and it's impossible for this position to be unlikely) that it is a criticism of an opponent, to try and gain support for Owen Smith
    And...?

    He has not violated British law in this action, which means that legally he is innocent, so that adjective is accurate
    It's clear you weren't using innocent in the sense of being innocent of any crime; if you were then your grasp of the English language and argumentation is extremely poor. It was clearly meant in the sense of naivety, lack of sophistication and worldliness, otherwise claiming he is "innocent" isn't any serious argument in favour of him given every other politician in the House of Commons is too.

    Your meaning is clear, you are now backpedaling to try to avoid looking stupid. The fact is that not everything that is lawful is moral, and if you are going to justify Corbyn doing immoral things by saying "Well, they're not illegal", then every criticism he's ever made of tax avoiding companies is completely invalid. And that would make him and you hypocrites

    Principled: Quote any of Jeremy Corbyn's principles (from the man himself) that were violated by this action.
    Corbyn said this;

    "there are many countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, and many more where homophobic hatred and violence are commonplace.

    I would be committed to standing up for LGBT communities, both at home and abroad."

    He has repeatedly proclaimed in the past that he is a great friend of the LGBT community. Except that a friend to the LGBT community wouldn't do a business deal with a regime that murders them. He did a deal with the murderers of LGBT people to shill for them on television. No moral, principled person would do that.

    If you're incapable of understanding why that is, then you clearly have developmental problems as far as empathy and morality go.

    Then I will listen to you.He hasn't legally, he has by your moral standards.I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. I have already said that he has demonstrated poor managerial qualities, it is very nice of you to back me up, and I appreciate your passion but if this is to be a constructive discussion then we need to get rid of this sort of thing.And your evidence of his inner thoughts is where?You use both words incorrectly. Jeremy Corbyn did not take, but accept payment. And I would like to see the evidence that multiple members of the payroll department of Press TV have murder convictions.Again, I would love to see that quotation.(from him)Again I feel that you generalise. Has he supported the cause of the IRA or the method? (You are going to need quotations there as well)I doubt any politician would decline that, and I doubt Jeremy had much choice in his followingKnowledge of what? And these attacks you mention? (I would be very impressed if you could link them to him directlyOh, so those people had incredible foresight to that "shock" decision over Brexit did they? All of them? And you know that this was their reason do you?Failing to see your point here.And you know this for a fact do you? Or is it just your opinion? My opinion: I'm sure he will. Just not for a few years at least. E.g. at the age of 80 when he's in a wheelchair and he's getting booed off stage — ...
    Just stop there. This rambling stream-of-consciousness pile of crap is worthless. I don't mean to be provocative but it's clear you're perhaps around average intelligence; when you marry that up with your strong opinions and obvious issues around empathy/morality, it makes for very tedious reading.

    Life's too short to spend it arguing with fanatics and thickos
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    If he supported the Kurds then he would have Turkey against him. Going back to what I said about realism, this could never be a governmental foreign policy.
    Given it is current government poilcy, your statement is bizarre.

    You also obviously don't understand the difference between the YPG and the KRG. The Kurdish Regional Government has fairly good relations with Turkey. We have provided substantial support to them, both in arms and in training and (most importantly) air power to support them in battle. If we had not provided that support, they would have gone under (as would the Iraqi government).

    The UK and US also provide covert support to the YPG, realising that they are the only ones really taking the fight to the enemy in Syria and Turkey can go **** itself given its support for terrorism and obsctructionist role in the Syrian Civil War.

    But even if we accepted your factually-inaccurate understanding, your position appears to be that Corbyn should allow democratic socialist Kurds to be murdered so we don't anger a far-right, fascistic Islamic dictator Erdogan. I thought Corbyn was always complaining about the West supporting dictators in that part of the world, complaining about a realpolitik policy?

    #CorbynValues

    KimKallstrom JamesN88
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    And...?
    And therefore, because of this bias, she could have exaggerated these claims to any proportion. As such, they should not be used as genuine truth.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's clear you weren't using innocent in the sense of being innocent of any crime;
    How do you know? Is this your Jedi mind-trick again?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    if you were then your grasp of the English language and argumentation is extremely poor.
    Thank you for the compliment. Your tactics of persuasion really are marvelous!
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It was clearly meant in the sense of naiveté, lack of sophistication and worldliness,
    Oh was it? And you konw this, how?
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    otherwise claiming he is "innocent" isn't any serious argument in favour of him given every other politician in the House of Commons is too.
    I repeat: I'm not in favour of him. I don't support him, I have stated my position and you are the one arguing with me on how my position is incorrect. Others have tried (JamesN88) and I'm still waiting for a return. Also, there have been a number of MPs, over the years and currently who have committed crimes.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Your meaning is clear, you are now backpedaling to try to avoid looking stupid.
    Again, your psychic abilities amaze me.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The fact is that not everything that is lawful is moral,
    Yes but who defines morality? You? Me? Kant? That is simply your opinion.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    and if you are going to justify Corbyn doing immoral things by saying "Well, they're not illegal", then every criticism he's ever made of tax avoiding companies is completely invalid. And that would make him and you hypocrites
    I didn't say he was moral. I said he was innocent. And legally, (as you have agreed), he is: and not all MPs are. I'm not justifying Corbyn's actions, I am justifying my description.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Corbyn said this;

    "there are many countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, and many more where homophobic hatred and violence are commonplace.

    I would be committed to standing up for LGBT communities, both at home and abroad."

    He has repeatedly proclaimed in the past that he is a great friend of the LGBT community. Except that a friend to the LGBT community wouldn't do a business deal with a regime that murders them. He did a deal with the murderers of LGBT people to shill for them on television. No moral, principled person would do that.
    In your opinion. Does his appearance on Press TV support the Iranian government's actions towards the LGBT community? I don't think so. To use a quotation from the foreign secretary in Quantum of Solace: 'If we didn't deal with bad people, there'd be nobody left to trade with.'
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    If you're incapable of understanding why that is, then you clearly have developmental problems as far as empathy and morality go.
    Again, your touching remarks really do bring tears to the eye with your way with words. With regards to empathy: I have sat in lectures at Cambridge University by Lord Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury) on the subject of empathy. I have also spent time studying philosophical theories of morality like contractarianism or moral subjectivism as well as Kant's Axe. Unless you have the same experience, then I would suggest it was you who had room for development with regards to your thoughts on the subject. You need to appreciate that everyone has different definitions of morality and that yours isn't necessarily right.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Just stop there. This rambling stream-of-consciousness pile of crap is worthless. I don't mean to be provocative but it's clear you're perhaps around average intelligence; when you marry that up with your strong opinions and obvious issues around empathy/morality, it makes for very tedious reading.
    Oh really? I don't think I've demonstrated any strong opinions here. I'd have said it was you, with your passionate opposition to Jeremy Corbyn (with reason) that is perhaps more extreme.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Life's too short to spend it arguing with fanatics and thickos
    Oh that's nice. So you've decided to spend it with me instead. You really are such a romantic.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Given it is current government poilcy, your statement is bizarre.
    No it isn't. The Kurds agenda is to re-establish Kurdistan. We do not support them in that. We support any group trying to defeat the so-called Islamic State in doing so, but not necessarily in any other policies of those groups. (E.g. we support Assad and Russia in trying to defeat IS, but do not agree with Assad's regime as a whole.)
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You also obviously don't understand the difference between the YPG and the KRG. The Kurdish Regional Government has fairly good relations with Turkey. We have provided substantial support to them, both in arms and in training and (most importantly) air power to support them in battle. If we had not provided that support, they would have gone under (as would the Iraqi government).
    Ah so you were referring to a particular Kurdish organisation rather than the people as a whole. Thank you for clarifying that 'Kurds' only meant the KRG.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The UK and US also provide covert support to the YPG, realising that they are the only ones really taking the fight to the enemy in Syria and Turkey can go **** itself given its support for terrorism and obstructionist role in the Syrian Civil War.
    Oh yeah. That really sounds liek the message to give to a key member of NATO, an important ally of the European Union. Given the meagre response of Western nations to the crack-down following their coup, I thought we were trying to keep them happy. Well thank you for clarifying what the world's media couldn't. I am really learning so much from you.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    But even if we accepted your factually-inaccurate understanding,
    You have neither dis-proven my facts nor proven your own. All you have done is criticise me for supporting Jeremy Corbyn which I have not done.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    your position appears to be that Corbyn should allow democratic socialist Kurds to be murdered so we don't anger a far-right, fascistic Islamic dictator Erdogan.
    No. My position, (as you should have read) is as follows:
    "Jeremy Corbyn is a passionate, honest, innocent, quiet and principled politician.

    However, he isn't animated, and he is a poor manager. If he made a commitment to manage his team better, then things may be different."

    Nothing that you have said with evidence has proven this otherwise.

    In terms of my position towards foreign policy, I am more cynical. We have to deal with 'bad' people because we are all 'bad' (including ourselves). Any other policy which deviates from that is simply utopian.

    Commenting on foreign policies from other parties and opposition is pointless as they are usually unrealistic.
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I thought Corbyn was always complaining about the West supporting dictators in that part of the world, complaining about a realpolitik policy?
    And...?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    And therefore, because of this bias, she could have exaggerated these claims to any proportion. As such, they should not be used as genuine truth.How do you know? Is this your Jedi mind-trick again?Thank you for the compliment. Your tactics of persuasion really are marvelous!Oh was it? And you konw this, how?I repeat: I'm not in favour of him. I don't support him, I have stated my position and you are the one arguing with me on how my position is incorrect. Others have tried (JamesN88) and I'm still waiting for a return. Also, there have been a number of MPs, over the years and currently who have committed crimes.Again, your psychic abilities amaze me.Yes but who defines morality? You? Me? Kant? That is simply your opinion.I didn't say he was moral. I said he was innocent. And legally, (as you have agreed), he is: and not all MPs are. I'm not justifying Corbyn's actions, I am justifying my description.In your opinion. Does his appearance on Press TV support the Iranian government's actions towards the LGBT community? I don't think so. To use a quotation from the foreign secretary in Quantum of Solace: 'If we didn't deal with bad people, there'd be nobody left to trade with.'Again, your touching remarks really do bring tears to the eye with your way with words. With regards to empathy: I have sat in lectures at Cambridge University by Lord Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury) on the subject of empathy. I have also spent time studying philosophical theories of morality like contractarianism or moral subjectivism as well as Kant's Axe. Unless you have the same experience, then I would suggest it was you who had room for development with regards to your thoughts on the subject. You need to appreciate that everyone has different definitions of morality and that yours isn't necessarily right.Oh really? I don't think I've demonstrated any strong opinions here. I'd have said it was you, with your passionate opposition to Jeremy Corbyn (with reason) that is perhaps more extreme.Oh that's nice. So you've decided to spend it with me instead. You really are such a romantic.No it isn't. The Kurds agenda is to re-establish Kurdistan. We do not support them in that. We support any group trying to defeat the so-called Islamic State in doing so, but not necessarily in any other policies of those groups. (E.g. we support Assad and Russia in trying to defeat IS, but do not agree with Assad's regime as a whole.)Ah so you were referring to a particular Kurdish organisation rather than the people as a whole. Thank you for clarifying that 'Kurds' only meant the KRG.Oh yeah. That really sounds liek the message to give to a key member of NATO, an important ally of the European Union. Given the meagre response of Western nations to the crack-down following their coup, I thought we were trying to keep them happy. Well thank you for clarifying what the world's media couldn't. I am really learning so much from you.You have neither dis-proven my facts nor proven your own. All you have done is criticise me for supporting Jeremy Corbyn which I have not done.No. My position, (as you should have read) is as follows:
    "Jeremy Corbyn is a passionate, honest, innocent, quiet and principled politician.

    However, he isn't animated, and he is a poor manager. If he made a commitment to manage his team better, then things may be different."

    Nothing that you have said with evidence has proven this otherwise.

    In terms of my position towards foreign policy, I am more cynical. We have to deal with 'bad' people because we are all 'bad' (including ourselves). Any other policy which deviates from that is simply utopian.

    Commenting on foreign policies from other parties and opposition is pointless as they are usually unrealistic.
    And...?
    What s/he said.

    OP, you seem to be continuing this vicious circle of an argument purely for your own sadistic pleasure (I see no other reason, please do enlighten me if there is one).

    We obviously have differing opinions and, looking at this thread, continuing this increasingly aggressive arguement would only hurt us, so how about we stop?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CornetPerson)
    What s/he said.

    OP, you seem to be continuing this vicious circle of an argument purely for your own sadistic pleasure (I see no other reason, please do enlighten me if there is one).

    We obviously have differing opinions and, looking at this thread, continuing this increasingly aggressive arguement would only hurt us, so how about we stop?
    Quit while your ahead. I tried to reason, it turns out he just goes to more insults instead of actually addressing questions. It wouldn't surprise me if he was in year 10 and just read the daily mail every day.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.