blandy

No, I read the linked metro article. Nothing in there about Corbyn or thornbury other than what I quoted back “ said he’d do what he could to help” or whatever the exact words were. I also googled “Corbyn make a formal request that the UK intervene in the case of nazirin” and found nowt from before Boris. Then repeated with Labour...ditto. Again nothing, apart from her MP. Even doing the search you suggest the result is from a year after her arrest and detention and then another from Boris time another stretch later. But I suppose if waiting from June 2016 ofvthe article and petition to March 2017 before Thornbury asks May to “show compassion ...and demand her release ” is doing everything he could, with all his Iran connections and all, then I’m not impressed.

Perfect. My excuse at last ?

I have a top tip, here. Simply procure one of those washing up brushes with the space for liquid inside and fill with colgate stripey toothpaste instead of Fairy liquid (if you prefer a minty taste) and open wide.

2 massive games coming up against the closest 2 challengers.

There's nothing remotely in the IHRA definition that covers criticising, however harshly, an opposition party for its policies. Or for calling out a named individual for horrible acts or statements or fascism. These are all things which are excluded as anti-semitic, because they could be made (and are) of other nations "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" further, the examples in the area of groups or individual specifically say that [we] should not "accuse Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group" and the letter goes nowhere near doing that - it keeps to the point about a specific party and persons. I concede that were the complaint to be made against a government the argument (and my point) is not so absolutely clear cut, but I still believe that the "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country.. point means it would be fine. I agree you'd probably get people from lobbyists to others with an agenda anti Labour or whatever, claiming all kinds, but the definition would render that as exactly what you imply - propaganda with no genuine validity

in November 2017. Boris time as far as I could find. Credit to her Labour MP, though for battling pretty much alone, on her behalf for the 17 months prior to that.

1. Exactly. 2. Yes. Also fair comment. Yes, also agree. The whataboutery surrounding not just Corbyn (as exhibited repeatedly in this thread by some posters), but also in the wider world in general is infuriating. It's obviously what's led to COrbyn's followers being (some of them) called a cult - because every criticism is just wafted away with some excuse that MSM, or what about...? I confess it irks me greatly that people who are otherwise rational, right thinking people, appear to utilise whataboutery every time anyone criticises Corbyn (in this case) or more generally. And yes it definitely works both ways, no argument there.

Not to my reading, as the whole letter and criticism are of a political party and are commendably clear about who they are criticising and for what and why.

I have 2 objections. 1 of many things that Iran could be validly praised for, it's history of inclusivity, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings is not that which comes to mind, considering the, er, history of the last 30 odd years is the exact opposite of that, and before that, as you imply, The Shah ran a sort of unpopular, slightly cleptocratic, royalist dynasty that favoured, very much, some over others. So going back a long way Iran is not as Jezza wished there were more people to hear. But even if he were right about that, in the next minute, we're told he's a harsh critic of Iran's actions and Government...So he's both praising and then signing (albeit toothless and completely pointless) EDMs criticising Iran over the exact same areas. Hypocrisy much? Different type of Politician...man of principle...not like the others. It's like he's got this invisibility shield to hide his uselessness and double standards, his 1970s anti USA, pro IRA, anti western, pro Russian, student union standard, South American socialist revolutionary unsuitability for leadership of a book club. never mind a political party or the country. Ah, but he's got a vegetable patch...lovely old man.

What's untrue, exactly? It's nice if he signed the petition (though I thought you were implying that's less effective than signing an EDM a bit ago) it's nice that he said to the husband "that he'd do anything he could to help" A few kind words...What, exactly did he actually do? What tangible act of intervention, or involvement did he do? Given, after all, it's claimed that he's all so buddy buddy with Iran's top people to achieve consensus and accord and whatever, how did he use his , er, influence to help? or is he just a tool for Iran? I'll go with he's a tool. Why do you keep defending the cult?

It has about as much impact. Makes him feel all righteous, no doubt (who could be against a top up of one's aura of self righteous preaching, eh?. Look at me with all my virtue, I scathe the media with their impertinent questions) Where was he when Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe got locked up? Nowehere to be seen or heard. Only popped up when Boris Johnson dropped yet another bollock and he could have a go at the tories. Chocolate teapot.

"More than most "is the ludicrous part, as you will know. His principled criticism of was so strong that he took wedge to appear on their telly and say nothing critical at all about them, to their face. Meanwhile, in Iranian prisons, there rot genuine principled political opponents, who to my way of thinking might be a tad more deserving of your ridiculous claim. It's like me signing 50 internet petitions against fracking and claiming to have criticised fracking "more than most". It would be and is ludicrous. edit Amnesty

He packed it in eventually. As I linked yesterday The second sentence is "interesting". It would be a funny old world if that kind of caveating was made a rule. "I'm afraid your criticism of this thing is rendered low grade and is discounted, as you didn't sufficiently condemn a different thing" To clarify, again if Jeremy Corbyn wants to be friends with and praise Iran's governemnt and establishment, that's up to him. - It's often said to have the nicest people in the world and the worst government in the world, after all - But making friends with a racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynstic, human rights suppressing zealot Government, being paid to appear on their state TV is going to bring some entirely valid cries of rampant hypocrisy. I will now validate this message by also criticising Lord Kitchener's introduction of internement camps in the 2nd Boer war circa 1901. The monster.

If I might stop you there. This is a completely ludicrous claim.

Enchillada, sour cream and , er, Broccoli and this epic Anna von Hausswolff performance. **** yeah!

Understatement of the year!. I don't think any of them want to own the clusterpork that is this Brexit mess, either.

You keep saying that, but it's utter bollocks. The reason why Syria would deploy such a weapon is the same one they've had all along. It works. Everywhere they've used the weapon they've prevailed. Once they use them, the opposiotion fighters, with no defence against it, bluntly scarper. SYrian foces then gain the ground/City/Town from the rebels. Assad wins. There has been almost no consequence for Syria of these repeated CW attacks. Token bombing of pre-warned targets by a handful of western planes or ships, then back to "normal".

I think I've got 3 of their Albums, Si. Brilliant Sanity is superb too, and there's onother one, maybe called Breakfast which is also good, but not quite as good as the other 2.

To be completely fair Al-Qaeda was found to have used mustard gas on (I think) 3 occasions in Syria. And the Syrian regime found to have repeatedly used Sarin and Chlorine gas. There don't seem to be many saints involved.

Well that's one take. Another is that 1. Assad knows he's winning. 2. Every time he's used chemicals he's achieved his objective and won with minimal consequences from the West. He's got chemicals. Scenario, chemicals are used. Question "who did it?" There's only one thing dumber than that question. Useful idiots.

woeful isn't it.

Yeah. And vice versa, I suppose. Hypocrisy everywhere.

(again) Accusing the US of filming/staging CW attack which will be released to media next tuesday. As they did a week or two ago. Absolutely No evidence or proof offered.. Meanwhile Syrian forces circle the city, if not to assault, to stop people fleeing. Assad's henchmen must be tooling up again.

Well kind of. If only.... When in the presence of Iranians in the UK, or in Iran on Press TV he praises Iran and slates the West, turning a deaf ear and blind eye to all sorts of things you'd perhaps anticipat a fearless crusader for peace and tolerance to maybe not ignore. Pockets wedge. Comes back to UK, does a spot of anti-semitism to keep his hand in, says little about Iran, signs the occasional, low profile parliamentary "this house notes that Iran is a bit naughty..." motion. High principles my arse. Imagine it was, I dunno, Jacob-Rees-Mogg , taking money off Israel TV, where he says nothing about the depravations faced by Palestinians, sits there while some bell comes out with rampant Islamophobic tripe, praises Israel;s tolerance towards its Arab and Muslim neighbours and then came back to the UK and signed a motion "this house notes that Israel did a bad thing.." You'd rightly call him all sorts of hypocrit and laugh at claims of "only trying to come to accord..."