Planet Rugby Forum

sewa wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

sewa wrote:This position upsets you? Its a perfectly understandable position and not in any way contraversial imo.

''Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns."

The only chance of achieving anyones goal has always been through the political process. All those years of murder never achieved anything that couldnt have been achieved by putting an argument forward and getting people to vote for it.

I am not defending the RA and I agree with your point, however I don't accept the contention above (by other posters) that McDonnell supported them and their armed campaign. Its a politically motivated slur, quite childish to be fair

Corbyn was arrested in 1986 for protesting against the trial of a group of IRA members including the Brighton Bomber Patrick Magee. Magee was convicted of murdering five people and the group were convicted of planning a "massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts". After refusing police requests to move from outside the court, Corbyn and the other protesters were arrested for obstruction and held for five hours before being released on bail, but were not charged.[57] Following the 1987 Loughgall ambush, in which 9 IRA members were killed while trying to blow up a police station, he attended a commemoration by the Wolfe Tone Society and stated "I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.[58][59]

In the early 1990s, MI5 opened a file on Corbyn over fears his IRA links meant he could have been a threat to national security.[60][61] The Metropolitan Police's Special Branch was also monitoring Corbyn at the time, and continued to monitor him for two decades over fears he was attempting to "undermine democracy".[62][63] According to The Sunday Times, following research in Irish and Republican archives, Corbyn was involved in over 72 events connected with Sinn Fein, or other pro-republican groups, during the period of the IRA's paramilitary campaign.[64]

armchair pundit wrote:

Corbyn was arrested in 1986 for protesting against the trial of a group of IRA members including the Brighton Bomber Patrick Magee. Magee was convicted of murdering five people and the group were convicted of planning a "massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts". After refusing police requests to move from outside the court, Corbyn and the other protesters were arrested for obstruction and held for five hours before being released on bail, but were not charged.[57] Following the 1987 Loughgall ambush, in which 9 IRA members were killed while trying to blow up a police station, he attended a commemoration by the Wolfe Tone Society and stated "I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.[58][59]

In the early 1990s, MI5 opened a file on Corbyn over fears his IRA links meant he could have been a threat to national security.[60][61] The Metropolitan Police's Special Branch was also monitoring Corbyn at the time, and continued to monitor him for two decades over fears he was attempting to "undermine democracy".[62][63] According to The Sunday Times, following research in Irish and Republican archives, Corbyn was involved in over 72 events connected with Sinn Fein, or other pro-republican groups, during the period of the IRA's paramilitary campaign.[64]

Every few years, the London Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn indulges his romantic support for Irish republicans by using his parliamentary privileges to give them a publicity platform. These occasions always also provide a showcase for Mr Corbyn’s abiding qualities: his lack of wider political and moral judgment, his predilection for gesture politics, his insensitivity to the feelings of most Londoners and his indifference to the policies of his party… Mr Corbyn’s actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so. It is surprising that a politician as clever and important as the Sinn Fein leader should be bothered with him. Grown-up people ought to keep this childish sideshow in perspective. Mr Corbyn is a fool, and a fool whom the Labour Party would probably be better off without.

Lobby wrote:This is from a Guardian article in 1996, long before anyone could be bothered to smear the Dear Leader:

Every few years, the London Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn indulges his romantic support for Irish republicans by using his parliamentary privileges to give them a publicity platform. These occasions always also provide a showcase for Mr Corbyn’s abiding qualities: his lack of wider political and moral judgment, his predilection for gesture politics, his insensitivity to the feelings of most Londoners and his indifference to the policies of his party… Mr Corbyn’s actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so. It is surprising that a politician as clever and important as the Sinn Fein leader should be bothered with him. Grown-up people ought to keep this childish sideshow in perspective. Mr Corbyn is a fool, and a fool whom the Labour Party would probably be better off without.

sewa wrote:

armchair pundit wrote:

Corbyn was arrested in 1986 for protesting against the trial of a group of IRA members including the Brighton Bomber Patrick Magee. Magee was convicted of murdering five people and the group were convicted of planning a "massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts". After refusing police requests to move from outside the court, Corbyn and the other protesters were arrested for obstruction and held for five hours before being released on bail, but were not charged.[57] Following the 1987 Loughgall ambush, in which 9 IRA members were killed while trying to blow up a police station, he attended a commemoration by the Wolfe Tone Society and stated "I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.[58][59]

In the early 1990s, MI5 opened a file on Corbyn over fears his IRA links meant he could have been a threat to national security.[60][61] The Metropolitan Police's Special Branch was also monitoring Corbyn at the time, and continued to monitor him for two decades over fears he was attempting to "undermine democracy".[62][63] According to The Sunday Times, following research in Irish and Republican archives, Corbyn was involved in over 72 events connected with Sinn Fein, or other pro-republican groups, during the period of the IRA's paramilitary campaign.[64]

None of which amounts to anything...

You will have to come up with something other than this rubbish

croyals wrote:

Lobby wrote:This is from a Guardian article in 1996, long before anyone could be bothered to smear the Dear Leader:

Every few years, the London Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn indulges his romantic support for Irish republicans by using his parliamentary privileges to give them a publicity platform. These occasions always also provide a showcase for Mr Corbyn’s abiding qualities: his lack of wider political and moral judgment, his predilection for gesture politics, his insensitivity to the feelings of most Londoners and his indifference to the policies of his party… Mr Corbyn’s actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so. It is surprising that a politician as clever and important as the Sinn Fein leader should be bothered with him. Grown-up people ought to keep this childish sideshow in perspective. Mr Corbyn is a fool, and a fool whom the Labour Party would probably be better off without.

I don't say this often but I agree with the Guardian.

sewa wrote:This position upsets you? Its a perfectly understandable position and not in any way contraversial imo.

''Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns."

Sandstorm wrote:

croyals wrote:

Lobby wrote:This is from a Guardian article in 1996, long before anyone could be bothered to smear the Dear Leader:

Every few years, the London Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn indulges his romantic support for Irish republicans by using his parliamentary privileges to give them a publicity platform. These occasions always also provide a showcase for Mr Corbyn’s abiding qualities: his lack of wider political and moral judgment, his predilection for gesture politics, his insensitivity to the feelings of most Londoners and his indifference to the policies of his party… Mr Corbyn’s actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so. It is surprising that a politician as clever and important as the Sinn Fein leader should be bothered with him. Grown-up people ought to keep this childish sideshow in perspective. Mr Corbyn is a fool, and a fool whom the Labour Party would probably be better off without.

I don't say this often but I agree with the Guardian.

21 years and counting. Just how bonkers are the people of Haringey Borough Council to keep voting the loon back in.

HurricaneWasp wrote:Regardless of whether he supported the IRA or not (he did), that ship has long since departed. He has successfully convinced the masses that he was a key negotiator of peace, and that is all that matters now.

armchair pundit wrote:

sewa wrote:This position upsets you? Its a perfectly understandable position and not in any way contraversial imo.

''Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns."

This statement makes no sense though.

He appears to contend that the "process of negotiation which has led to peace" was brought about by acts of murder and terorrism, and that because the acts of murder and terrorism led, after negotiation, to "peace", those acts were justified and should be honoured.

This is a complete nonsense. It was the acts of murder and terrorism themselves which were the very acts that created a state that was not peace.

He might as well say that he honoured acts of killing, because eventually there was a negotiation which stopped the killing, therefore the killing was justified because it led to the cessation of the killing.

The man supported, condoned, encouraged and "honoured" terrorism. His ridiculous words only serve to prove that fact, not to justify or to refute it in any way whatsoever.

armchair pundit wrote:

Corbyn was arrested in 1986 for protesting against the trial of a group of IRA members including the Brighton Bomber Patrick Magee. Magee was convicted of murdering five people and the group were convicted of planning a "massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts". After refusing police requests to move from outside the court, Corbyn and the other protesters were arrested for obstruction and held for five hours before being released on bail, but were not charged.[57] Following the 1987 Loughgall ambush, in which 9 IRA members were killed while trying to blow up a police station, he attended a commemoration by the Wolfe Tone Society and stated "I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.[58][59]

In the early 1990s, MI5 opened a file on Corbyn over fears his IRA links meant he could have been a threat to national security.[60][61] The Metropolitan Police's Special Branch was also monitoring Corbyn at the time, and continued to monitor him for two decades over fears he was attempting to "undermine democracy".[62][63] According to The Sunday Times, following research in Irish and Republican archives, Corbyn was involved in over 72 events connected with Sinn Fein, or other pro-republican groups, during the period of the IRA's paramilitary campaign.[64]

armchair pundit wrote:

sewa wrote:This position upsets you? Its a perfectly understandable position and not in any way contraversial imo.

''Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland Assembly elections... Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns."

This statement makes no sense though.

He appears to contend that the "process of negotiation which has led to peace" was brought about by acts of murder and terorrism, and that because the acts of murder and terrorism led, after negotiation, to "peace", those acts were justified and should be honoured.

This is a complete nonsense. It was the acts of murder and terrorism themselves which were the very acts that created a state that was not peace.

He might as well say that he honoured acts of killing, because eventually there was a negotiation which stopped the killing, therefore the killing was justified because it led to the cessation of the killing.

The man supported, condoned, encouraged and "honoured" terrorism. His ridiculous words only serve to prove that fact, not to justify or to refute it in any way whatsoever.

Sky News Newsdesk‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak 20m20 minutes ago
Sky News has learned high-rise buildings which have now failed fire safety tests were declared safe by the same regulators a year ago

Sky News Newsdesk‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak 19m19 minutes ago
Sky News has learned Govt and safety authorities were aware cladding was flammable but believed overall regulations in place were "adequate"

c69 wrote: zzz you are deluded and filled with as much parochial partisan shit as momentum and the so called Corbinistas

c69 wrote: that's not even a comeback.
You've lost whatever little of it you ever had

Margin_Walker wrote:Still looks like this could have a fair amount of political blow back

Sky News Newsdesk‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak 20m20 minutes ago
Sky News has learned high-rise buildings which have now failed fire safety tests were declared safe by the same regulators a year ago

Sky News Newsdesk‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak 19m19 minutes ago
Sky News has learned Govt and safety authorities were aware cladding was flammable but believed overall regulations in place were "adequate"

The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."

The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
http://news.sky.com/story/government-fi ... 6-10928193

sewa wrote:Tighter control of immigrants would fix your shit housing?yeah right u right wing dope

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:David Lammy really ought to shut up. I know he last a friend in the fire, but that's actually making him too close to the problem. The only way for the state to answer some of the questions he's asked would be for us to have much tighter control of both immigrants and the population at large - which he would undoubtedly vote against

really ? he is the problem?
This is not a party political issue it is a systemic problem over years.
Imho

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Tighter control of immigrants would fix your shit housing?yeah right u right wing dope

You what? David Lammy was arguing that the British State ought to know exactly how many immigrants, illegal or otherwise, were in the tower on the night that it burnt.

sewa wrote:News night on now. 75towers are lethal so far. Government cover up in full swing

Flockwitt wrote:

sewa wrote:News night on now. 75towers are lethal so far. Government cover up in full swing

Why are people obsessed with cover ups? There's nothing to cover up here or able to be covered up bar the media printing whatever lines of turgid nonsense suits their agenda. The building regulations will be a clear matter of record. The people who signed off on them a clear matter of record. The materials and structure easy to test. This is in itself a reasonably straight forward engineering exercise.

sewa wrote:

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Tighter control of immigrants would fix your shit housing?yeah right u right wing dope

You what? David Lammy was arguing that the British State ought to know exactly how many immigrants, illegal or otherwise, were in the tower on the night that it burnt.

So the people who are in any location at any time? Maybe we all need to verify our fingerprints or biometric eye scans every time we enter a building. Cop on to fook. Just because you couldn't control the local idiots we should all suffer

sewa wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

sewa wrote:News night on now. 75towers are lethal so far. Government cover up in full swing

Why are people obsessed with cover ups? There's nothing to cover up here or able to be covered up bar the media printing whatever lines of turgid nonsense suits their agenda. The building regulations will be a clear matter of record. The people who signed off on them a clear matter of record. The materials and structure easy to test. This is in itself a reasonably straight forward engineering exercise.

Because there is a clear cover up

sewa wrote:Just because one MP says we should sacrifice all our civil liberties doesn't mean we should (fudge u Google, I bet u they know)

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Just because one MP says we should sacrifice all our civil liberties doesn't mean we should (fudge u Google, I bet u they know)

I give up with some people on this board, I really do

sewa wrote:

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Just because one MP says we should sacrifice all our civil liberties doesn't mean we should (fudge u Google, I bet u they know)

I give up with some people on this board, I really do

Do some study, civil liberties is a big topic. Them come back

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Just because one MP says we should sacrifice all our civil liberties doesn't mean we should (fudge u Google, I bet u they know)

I give up with some people on this board, I really do

Do some study, civil liberties is a big topic. Them come back

I know it is you f**king idiot

That was the whole f**king point of my initial post yiu utter halfwit

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:David Lammy really ought to shut up. I know he last a friend in the fire, but that's actually making him too close to the problem. The only way for the state to answer some of the questions he's asked would be for us to have much tighter control of both immigrants and the population at large - which he would undoubtedly vote against

really ? he is the problem?
This is not a party political issue it is a systemic problem over years.
Imho

have you been watching newsnight? The interview he gave is making the issue on the ground, WRT how many people died, significantly worse. he;s absolutely correct to say that in likelihood more people have died than is the current official figure, but the only other number they can provide is a complete Wild Ass Guess.

and as for suggesting, or insinuating, that there even might have been a cover up over how many people jumped and the bodies found outside.....

he is far to close to the specific issue

No I've not been watching Newsnight, I've been smoking some Turkey and Pork on my BBQ tbh for the first time and realise I need to do it at the weekend not start at 6pm. However I doubt the whole facts will come out for a few years.
I have said consistently this is not party political it's a system problem, cost cutting will certainly have been an issue imho by councils or authorities or governments of all colours.

sewa wrote:

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:

Saint wrote:

sewa wrote:Just because one MP says we should sacrifice all our civil liberties doesn't mean we should (fudge u Google, I bet u they know)

I give up with some people on this board, I really do

Do some study, civil liberties is a big topic. Them come back

I know it is you f**king idiot

That was the whole f**king point of my initial post yiu utter halfwit

I think you are starting to get it

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:David Lammy really ought to shut up. I know he last a friend in the fire, but that's actually making him too close to the problem. The only way for the state to answer some of the questions he's asked would be for us to have much tighter control of both immigrants and the population at large - which he would undoubtedly vote against

really ? he is the problem?
This is not a party political issue it is a systemic problem over years.
Imho

have you been watching newsnight? The interview he gave is making the issue on the ground, WRT how many people died, significantly worse. he;s absolutely correct to say that in likelihood more people have died than is the current official figure, but the only other number they can provide is a complete Wild Ass Guess.

and as for suggesting, or insinuating, that there even might have been a cover up over how many people jumped and the bodies found outside.....

he is far to close to the specific issue

No I've not been watching Newsnight, I've been smoking some Turkey and Pork on my BBQ tbh for the first time and realise I need to do it at the weekend not start at 6pm. However I doubt the whole facts will come out for a few years.
I have said consistently this is not party political it's a system problem, cost cutting will certainly have been an issue imho by councils or authorities or governments of all colours.

c69 wrote:

really ? he is the problem?
This is not a party political issue it is a systemic problem over years.
Imho

This is my post saint.
Is he the problem? NO
Should people make this a party political issue ? No
Does the problem seem a system issue ? Yes

We need the facts.

c69 wrote:

Saint wrote:

c69 wrote:

really ? he is the problem?
This is not a party political issue it is a systemic problem over years.
Imho

This is my post saint.
Is he the problem? NO
Should people make this a party political issue ? No
Does the problem seem a system issue ? Yes

We need the facts.

With regards to what he was talking about tonight, yes, he's part of the problem, and he's actually making things worse, although he undoubtedly doesn't realise it at the moment.

He wasn't commenting on building regs, fireproof standards, inspections, or anything at all that do with the fire itself

who is he part of this so called problem?
what f**king problem?
The problem as I see it is people have died because non fit for purpose cladding/insulation was fitted to a Tower Block and fire retardance and safety in some blocks including alarms and non compliant fire doors etc were not and are not fit for purpose.
No? what has he done wrong in his emotional state other than being empathic?