Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[moof]

33 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It’s not really an opinion thing, mate. A war criminal needs to have committed war crimes. Which war crimes did Alastair Campbell commit? 

Really, mate? The illegal invasion of Iraq? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, moof said:

Really, mate? The illegal invasion of Iraq? 

No, I understand. He isn’t a war criminal though. 

[moof]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No, I understand. He isn’t a war criminal though. 

Disagree

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, moof said:

Disagree

Well, okay. I disagree that you disagree. 

[moof]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, okay. I disagree that you disagree. 

*throws shoe*

[skend04]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/labour-chair-peoples-vote-backers-sneering-ordinary-people-ian-lavery

 

So it's now "left-wing intellectual" remainers sneering at the ordinary voter? Ian Lavery has clearly missed the memo where ordinary voters also voted remain.

 

The Labour leadership is excelling here at disenfranchising yet more of its voters, most of who took it to one of its highest vote share in 2017. 

 

*Slow handclap*

[Gnasher]

3 hours ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

 

Is this shit supposed to be funny?  Maybe in student land it is but have a fucking word with yourself you soft  cunt.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Facilitating an illegal war is not the same as committing war crimes.

[lifetime fan]

3 hours ago, Istvan Kosma said:

 

Fucks sake...

[Pidge]

38 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Is this shit supposed to be funny?  Maybe in student land it is but have a fucking word with yourself you soft  cunt.

U mad?

[moof]

11 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Facilitating an illegal war is not the same as committing war crimes.

The Principles applied at Nuremberg in 1945-6 make clear that “complicity in the commission of a crime against peace … is a crime under international law”. A “crime against peace”, these Principles state, means one of two things: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”; or “(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/390

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

RIP to Walter Wolfgang. A man whose stance on the Iraq War should be welcomed in the Labour Party. And a Jewish friend of that rabid antisemite Jeremy Corbyn. 

[Gnasher]

17 minutes ago, Pidge said:

U mad?

Yep.

[Dr Nowt]

45 minutes ago, Pidge said:

U desperate for the attention of someone who thinks you’re a mouth-breathing sack of monkey spunk?

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

43 minutes ago, moof said:

The Principles applied at Nuremberg in 1945-6 make clear that “complicity in the commission of a crime against peace … is a crime under international law”. A “crime against peace”, these Principles state, means one of two things: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”; or “(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/390

The problem is, "peace" is not a term that would be applied easily under international law to a murderous dictatorship, hence the reason interventionist wars tend not to lead to war crimes tribunals, no matter how bloody they become. If any act of force, interceding on the behalf of others, were to be considered a crime, then practically all participants in wars would be prosecuted. 

[Section_31]

Has anyone posted that vid of the old bloke in the pink kecks saying he should be killed yet?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It's proper mad that a politician who spoke at a Communist Party event in approx 1997/98 wasn't expelled by Labour under a rule that didn't come into existence until around 2003 to 2004.

 

What's the world coming to???

 

Some people are just really, really bad at this whataboutery stuff! 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I see that the woeful Luke Akehurst is amongst those who are very publicly appalled at Campbell's expulsion from the party. 

 

Here he is in 2016 when a Momentum and Labour member said that they would not be voting Labour in an upcoming election:

 

 

[skend04]

If people still believe Corbyn is the man to lead a political party, can you just translate this for all the voters who decided not to vote for Labour in the last 2 elections.

 

Asked if a second referendum was now the only way forward for the UK, Mr Corbyn said: “The referendum would be on a negotiated deal or alternatives to that. It’s not a re-run of 2016.”

 

Obfuscation wins votes...

[sir roger]

Got to admire Campbell's front to be fair , dragging in the anti-semitism slurs as he slinks out , having seen his earlier contributions to the fight included producing election posters showing Michael Howard as Fagin & posters showing Howard and Oliver Letwin's faces over the faces of pigs.

 

When pulled up on the obvious connotations, SD's favourite martyr's apology was fulsome ' Fuck off and cover something important you twats ' he offered.

 

 

[Jose Jones]

37 minutes ago, skend04 said:

If people still believe Corbyn is the man to lead a political party, can you just translate this for all the voters who decided not to vote for Labour in the last 2 elections.

 

Asked if a second referendum was now the only way forward for the UK, Mr Corbyn said: “The referendum would be on a negotiated deal or alternatives to that. It’s not a re-run of 2016.”

 

Obfuscation wins votes...

What’s wrong with that?

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

What’s wrong with that?

 

I think Skend is reading 'alternatives to that' as 'no deal'. But I think Corbyn is saying negotiated deal or remain. That would be consistent with what has previously been said. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 hours ago, moof said:

The Principles applied at Nuremberg in 1945-6 make clear that “complicity in the commission of a crime against peace … is a crime under international law”. A “crime against peace”, these Principles state, means one of two things: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”; or “(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/390

Nope. 

 

Do you really want to get into this? It's going to be a massive waste of time, considering both the position he held and the rest of the law - and the meaning of war criminal - but I suppose I could make a coffee and waste an hour. Or... you could just (please) say... nah, fuck it. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Nice to see that Captain Freedom negs posts about laws and rules not operating retrospectively. 

 

He's a shining example of libertarianism, negging posts championing that rules shouldn't go against all the norms of natural justice and posts about slaughtered children. 

 

What an awful human being. 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

Got to admire Campbell's front to be fair , dragging in the anti-semitism slurs as he slinks out , having seen his earlier contributions to the fight included producing election posters showing Michael Howard as Fagin & posters showing Howard and Oliver Letwin's faces over the faces of pigs.

 

When pulled up on the obvious connotations, SD's favourite martyr's apology was fulsome ' Fuck off and cover something important you twats ' he offered.

 

SD's favourite martyr? No, I don't like the guy and never have, and him being excluded from Labour unquestionably aids my party's prospects.

 

But if you only criticise unfair treatment of people you like, then you're not being principled, you're being partisan.