Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Corbyn Briefed Communist Spies in Cold War watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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.
    Genuine question, why shouldn't papers who print falsehoods be held liable? If a paper printed lies about you that damaged your reputation do you not think its fair that you should have a redress?

    We're not talking merely publishing unfavorable opinions but rather making false factual allegations.

    Your argument regarding who had Britain's best interests at heart is a political one, not an objective one. You don't get to simply declare yourself as the arbiter of who wants best for Britain. I don't doubt any politician wants what they think is best for Britain, left or right. It's very slippery ground to be arguing on.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    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/...o-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."
    Excellent post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Genuine question, why shouldn't papers who print falsehoods be held liable? If a paper printed lies about you that damaged your reputation do you not think its fair that you should have a redress?

    We're not talking merely publishing unfavorable opinions but rather making false factual allegations.

    Your argument regarding who had Britain's best interests at heart is a political one, not an objective one. You don't get to simply declare yourself as the arbiter of who wants best for Britain. I don't doubt any politician wants what they think is best for Britain, left or right. It's very slippery ground to be arguing on.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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.
    You shouldn't be ashamed of making the argument at all! Most tory voters think Labour policies are dreadful and most Labour voters think tory policies are dreadful. That's absolutely fine.

    The problem on both sides though is the accusation that those who think differently to us have sinister motives. I have definitely been guilty of making such accusations in the past for sure.

    And that's what I object to, the notion that Corbyn was not acting in what he thought Britain's best interests were. I truly believe that nearly every politician, right left or centre goes into politics to try and make the country a better place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    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.
    Like I said, not engaging. Thatcher won three elections and brought back Britain's economic strength. Did she get everything right? No. Am I going to engage on a point-by-point debate on her character? No. Does it make Corbyn's actions right? Also no.

    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.
    Which he absolutely did not. As everyone involved in the peace process will tell you, he was an irrelevance. Even so, we can legitimately question his actions and motives. His best mate McDonnell was an open critic of the Good Friday Agreement. The 'peace' that they both wanted was specifically one where the IRA had won, and there were a united Ireland.

    Your argument is that repeatedly meeting with representatives of communist totalitarian states is fine, and there are no legitimate questions to ask? I submit that there are vanishingly few MPs who would have thought it acceptable to meet with such a person, for perfectly obvious reasons. In the same way very few MPs would have thought it acceptable to be paid to broadcast Iranian propaganda in 2008.

    For an in-depth study of Brexit reporting, try here http://oxfordstudent.com/2016/05/29/...o-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"
    I'm not sure your point. Yes, large segments of the press were firmly behind Brexit, as is their right. Given their readership, I think it would have been surprising if the likes of the Mail/Sun/Express/Telegraph had not supported it.

    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."
    I am not going to stand here and say the press gets everything right all of the time and never goes too far. On the other hand, I am a big believer that a vibrant and competitive press is one of the biggest assets our democracy has, and would not want to submit to anything which jeopordised (or had the potential to jeopordise) that, which most proposed press regulation clearly does.

    There are things I would be prepared to support, like low cost arbitration or better corrections, but Leveson goes beyond this and I suspect Labour would happily go further still.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    You shouldn't be ashamed of making the argument at all! Most tory voters think Labour policies are dreadful and most Labour voters think tory policies are dreadful. That's absolutely fine.

    The problem on both sides though is the accusation that those who think differently to us have sinister motives. I have definitely been guilty of making such accusations in the past for sure.

    And that's what I object to, the notion that Corbyn was not acting in what he thought Britain's best interests were. I truly believe that nearly every politician, right left or centre goes into politics to try and make the country a better place.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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.
    I would agree that Corbyn has been naive at times.

    What I absolutely do reject and regard as smears are the accusations that he was actively trying to hurt Britain/ supporting terrorist attacks on British soldiers/ wanting our 'enemies' to win.

    And I think leading on the latter, as the tory party and press generally do, is a rather underhand tactic that demeans politics. There are certainly some on the left who do the same and are just as bad.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Ben Bradley has made the following statement:


    “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies. I have since deleted the defamatory tweet. I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.
    “I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.
    “I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: February 24, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.