The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's truly bizarre that having criticised Iran more than most...

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

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

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

I showed the figures for MPs earlier in the thread.  You discounted this.  If signing early day motions (a traditional and common way for MPs to express views and seek support for causes) is to be ignored, what form of criticism are you prepared to count?  Posts on messageboards?  Graffiti?  Twitter?  Chats with taxi drivers and bar staff?

If there is a ludicrous claim, it's that he has not criticised Iran on human rights.  It's a matter of public record.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm no lover of the Iranian government, or of Corbyn being paid for appearances on Press TV, and it would be much better if he knocked it on the head immediately. 

I have to say, though, that I must have missed all the endless condemnation of the Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini governments from his critics, who obviously have a spotless record in calling out middle eastern human rights abuses. 

He packed it in eventually. As I linked yesterday

Quote

Corbyn's final Press TV appearance was six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari.

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.

 

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

I showed the figures for MPs earlier in the thread.  You discounted this.  If signing early day motions (a traditional and common way for MPs to express views and seek support for causes) is to be ignored, what form of criticism are you prepared to count?  Posts on messageboards?  Graffiti?  Twitter?  Chats with taxi drivers and bar staff?

If there is a ludicrous claim, it's that he has not criticised Iran on human rights.  It's a matter of public record.

"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

Quote

Many prisoners of conscience undertook hunger strikes to protest against their unjust imprisonment.

The authorities arrested hundreds of protesters following anti-establishment demonstrations that began across the country at the end of December. Reports emerged that security forces killed and injured unarmed protesters by using firearms and other excessive force. 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by blandy
added example of real protesters

[peterms]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

"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.

As you know, my original post with the chart was showing that he had criticised Iran more than most MPs.  As it happens, that's also more than most UK citizens, unless there's a vast undercurrent of chat about Iran that's escaped me all these years.  No, he's not more critical of Iran than an Iranian political prisoner; now that would be a ridiculous claim.

No, an MP signing EDMs is really not like you signing a petition.

[blandy]

Just now, peterms said:

No, an MP signing EDMs is really not like you signing a petition.

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.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

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.

Even 3 minutes on the internet would show you this is not the case.  Here.

Quote

A petition trying to free the 37-year-old has now gathered more than 700,000 signatures.

It was handed in to Downing Street last month and will be passed to the Iranian embassy once 1 million signatures have been reached.

Richard said he has had no word from the Government since the signatures were passed to them, but has been told by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn that he will do all he can to help.

Followed by Thornberry, as the relevant portfolio holder, calling on May to demand her release.

Both these things were well before Johnson's stupid intervention.

Why are you saying these things?  It's demonstrably untrue.

[blandy]

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?

[Xann]

Iran is a product of its environment.

From the Westernised Shah that completed alienated his people, through the war against US backed Iraq, then the Gulf Wars and then the tear up in Syria.

Iran is expected to play ball with the other nations through the UN and agencies like the IAEA, yet Israel, a direct threat to Iran, pays international laws no heed whatsoever, unless it's to their advantage?

Many of the ways they go about following their sky fairy handbook are pretty grim, but hang on, we deal with the Saudis. They live and hang out in our Western cities, and they're still f***ing primitives at home.

 

Anyone that thinks Corbyn is about supporting oppressive regimes is a bit daft.

@blandy's objections to the content of the clip mystify me.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Xann

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

 

@blandy's objections to the content of the clip mystify me.

Without wishing to speak for Pete, it’s  the fact he's in it that’s pretty objectionable in itself

Edit: it’s also what he's not saying and the fact that him being there lends legitimacy to the Iranian government.

This building bridges shite as Pete has already pointed out, amounts to nothing as when he was called upon to do something with his bridge, he appears to have done nothing or his bridge was built on quicksand

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

@blandy's objections to the content of the clip mystify me.

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.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

What's untrue, exactly? 

" 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. " - obviously.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

What, exactly did he actually do? What tangible act of intervention, or involvement did he do?

He used his position and that of the shadow foreign secretary to make a formal request that the UK intervene in the case.  This is appropriate, relevant to his position, potentially helpful, and practical.

What do you suggest he should have done?  Parachute in under cover of darkness to spring her from jail, possibly carrying a box of Milk Tray?

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

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.

In case my point isn't clear enough, I'll number it for you:

1 - It's Not A Good Thing for Jeremy Corbyn to be on Press TV, and he shouldn't have done it, for most of the reasons that you outlined. I'm pleased to hear that he has stopped. Iran's government has committed, and continues to commit, a large number of human rights abuses, and while he may have condemned some or even many of these in Early Day Motions, they have little actual meaning and pale into insignificance compared to the propaganda coup of having someone speak on TV. Even if the content of what he said was unobjectionable in the main, it should have been obvious that a network like that would place whatever he said alongside more objectionable content and so, bottom line, appearing was definitely a bad idea. 

2 - However, if people are concerned about some human rights abuses in the Middle East, they might also be concerned about other human rights abuses in the region. If so, they will need to acknowledge that the current government is providing political and operational support to an illegal blockade of a nation, which has seen a famine of historic proportions and an outbreak of cholera that infected not far off a million people as a result. This atrocity is being made possible by western weapons, western training and western political cover at the United Nations, and the UK is second only to the US in providing that support. We may also consider that Iran is very far from the only nation in the region which commits large-scale human rights abuses, and that some of the other nations which do so have close ties with various Conservative figures. 

You can call it 'interesting' or suggest it's whataboutery if you want. I'd rather address what both sides are doing wrong. 

[PompeyVillan]

Iranian and Russian state stooge. He's been a naughty boy in his time. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In case my point isn't clear enough, I'll number it for you:

1 - It's Not A Good Thing for Jeremy Corbyn to be on Press TV, and he shouldn't have done it, for most of the reasons that you outlined. I'm pleased to hear that he has stopped. Iran's government has committed, and continues to commit, a large number of human rights abuses, and while he may have condemned some or even many of these in Early Day Motions, they have little actual meaning and pale into insignificance compared to the propaganda coup of having someone speak on TV. Even if the content of what he said was unobjectionable in the main, it should have been obvious that a network like that would place whatever he said alongside more objectionable content and so, bottom line, appearing was definitely a bad idea. 

2 - However, if people are concerned about some human rights abuses in the Middle East, they might also be concerned about other human rights abuses in the region. If so, they will need to acknowledge that the current government is providing political and operational support to an illegal blockade of a nation, which has seen a famine of historic proportions and an outbreak of cholera that infected not far off a million people as a result. This atrocity is being made possible by western weapons, western training and western political cover at the United Nations, and the UK is second only to the US in providing that support. We may also consider that Iran is very far from the only nation in the region which commits large-scale human rights abuses, and that some of the other nations which do so have close ties with various Conservative figures. 

You can call it 'interesting' or suggest it's whataboutery if you want. I'd rather address what both sides are doing wrong. 

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.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

He used his position and that of the shadow foreign secretary to make a formal request that the UK intervene in the case.  This is appropriate, relevant to his position, potentially helpful, and practical.

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.

[peterms]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

in November 2017. Boris time as far as I could find. 

You didn't find the link in my post?  Seriously?

I quoted Corbyn's intervention in 2016 and linked the piece.  

I referenced Thornberry's follow-up, and said that both were before Johnson's comments.  I didn't link that one. If you search "Thornberry ratcliffe may", it's literally the first thing you find.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

You didn't find the link in my post?  Seriously?

I quoted Corbyn's intervention in 2016 and linked the piece.  

I referenced Thornberry's follow-up, and said that both were before Johnson's comments.  I didn't link that one. If you search "Thornberry ratcliffe may", it's literally the first thing you find.

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.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

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” is doing everything he could, with all his Iran connections and all, then I’m not impressed.

You have claimed that Corbyn came on board with her case only in response to Johnson's intervention, and by implication, as an act of political opportunism.

I have shown, with reference to facts, that this is not the case.

You don't accept this.

I don't think this is going anywhere.  We probably both have more rewarding things to do.

I'll leave it there.

[PompeyVillan]

I'm not sure at what point he thought that going in Iranian state TV was a good idea. 

That in itself isn't particularly harmful if you ask me, it doesn't make him a hypocrite or an apologist for racism, anti semetism or anything else. I just can't see how it could do any good.