Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Rico1304]

27 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Interesting piece in Private Eye about the Forde inquiry. 
 

So now we are getting to understand why the Forde report won’t be rushed out, it’s a potential fucking disaster, bravo all, well fucking done.
 

All is not as it seems.

 

Labour is getting bosses to lean on people to stop them progressing with claims of libel, from the leaks of emails of ‘right wing nut jobs’ in the party trying to position them for blame for the election defeat and the anti semitism ‘crisis’

So, the people fingered by the leaks from Corbyn supporters are being asked, by their bosses, at the behest of current Labour leadership, to stop their requests for a name of the person who leaked as this would mean the current incumbents would be being sued by their own supporters, the ‘ring wing shills’. So even though Corbyn doesn’t even have the whip anymore they can still sue the party, rightly and legally as their comments were taken out of context and produced prejudicially, if the person who leaked name is made public, though privately people know who it is.

 

What an absolute clusterfuck.

 

So Corbyns people are responsible for the suits, the libel, the fall out and potentially crippling the party financially and the ‘right wing shills’ have grounds for libel and breaches of privacy, that even Corbyns legal team know stand up.

 

25 of the 30+ claims have a strong chance of victory if taken to court.

 

Fucking bravo, comrades, brafuckingvo! 

 

 

 

How do you get on with Private Eye? I’ve had a subscription for about 6 months but I bet I don’t read more than 3 or 4 articles an edition. The layout just hurts my eyes.  

[Bruce Spanner]

7 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Is Corbyn the person who leaked it ?

Does it matter?

 

It leaves two options either he knowingly allowed its release, or somebody went behind his back and undermined him.

 

Neither are fucking great looks and both still leave culpability. 

 

 

[sir roger]

I can't see how number 2 is his fault , although I realise everything is his fault.

[Duff Man]

Hopefully it's all dropped, and the people responsible for creating an utterly toxic environment at party HQ, and possibly sabotaging an election campaign, can be left to go about their lives. Frankly it's outrageous there's even a suggestion of them facing any kind of consequences, tbh.

[Bruce Spanner]

27 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

How do you get on with Private Eye? I’ve had a subscription for about 6 months but I bet I don’t read more than 3 or 4 articles an edition. The layout just hurts my eyes.  

I read it in four blocks, though mostly skim the comics and silly stuff. So, lead stories and SOS, Agri-Rotten Borough/funny old world, comics and finally ‘in the back’

 

I fall in and out of love with it.

It’s the economist I struggle with, some months I’ll just read the lead article and think ‘nah’.

 

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I can't see how number 2 is his fault , although I realise everything is his fault.

Because as leader of the party he didn’t have the authority to stop it happening.

 

Weak leadership.

 

If it was against him, fine, but this was fucking supportive.

[sir roger]

11 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Because as leader of the party he didn’t have the authority to stop it happening.

 

Weak leadership.

 

If it was against him, fine, but this was fucking supportive.

Starmer won the election on the 4th April , the leak was on or around the 17th April and The Forde Enquiry was set up in late May / early June 2020 by so not sure how even Voldemort can be blamed for lack of authority in stopping this.

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, sir roger said:

Starmer won the election on the 4th April , the leak was on or around the 17th April and The Forde Enquiry was set up in late May / early June 2020 by so not sure how even Voldemort can be blamed for lack of authority in stopping this.

I’m not doing this.

 

Read above, find the article, whatever.

 

The blame is laid directly at supporters of Corbyn and I’m not going to be wasting anytime going through the minutia as people try and justify the conspiracy against Corbyn.

 

Have a good evening.

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

On 16/02/2021 at 23:30, Rico1304 said:

Agency.  A headmaster in the 70’s has agency when caning (despite it being wrong).  A man whipping a child for a film...well, make your own mind up.  

Should Robert De Niro get the same shit for twatting an actresses head against a door frame in Raging Bull? 

 

 

[sir roger]

1 minute ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Should Robert De Niro get the same shit for twatting an actresses head against a door frame in Raging Bull? 

 

 

No , but that car advert , fuck me.

[sir roger]

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/04/the-leaked-labour-report-is-shameful-its-time-for-an-urgent-investigation

 

In case we forget what this was all about to concentrate on these poor lambs who have been blatantly libelled.

 

Anyway , I thought sweet pay outs for no obvious reason to lying centrist plotters at Head Office is what we are about these days.

[Gnasher]

On 16/02/2021 at 19:59, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Imagine if it was a black person making the same tenuous, paranoid accusation.  

Eddie Marsan amplified the accusation.  The same Marsan who appeared in a film with Mel Gibson last year.  

Just pack it in you fucking idiots. 

Probably the wrong thread but heres a long review of the Baddiel book if anyones interested. 

 

Summary: it's a load of tosh,

 

 

https://www.jewdas.org/aging-liberal-confuses-self-blames-left/

[Colonel Bumcunt]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Probably the wrong thread but heres a long review of the Baddiel book if anyones interested. 

 

Summary: it's a load of tosh,

 

 

https://www.jewdas.org/aging-liberal-confuses-self-blames-left/

Fuck me that's lavish. 

[Stickman]

How it started 
 

 

How it ended 

 

 

 

[Denny Crane]

Worth a read. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

29 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

Worth a read. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Profound, how did he think of all that by himself?

 

Should have just written a shit poem instead, really hammered home how simple he is.

 

I’m negging you for posting that, it’s pointless, empty gesture guff trying to over simplify complex issues, issues he clearly has no idea about, and attempt to appear intelligent, or just another Twitter tosser posting ill thought out nonsense for likes.

 

Edit: I’m genuinely annoyed I read that, I then went to his Twitter profile and saw other such dribbling. I’d neg you twice if I could.

[Denny Crane]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Profound, how did he think of all that by himself?

Feel free to add your own critique rather than insult someone. 

[Neil G]

On 19/02/2021 at 17:28, Bruce Spanner said:

Interesting piece in Private Eye about the Forde inquiry. 
 

So now we are getting to understand why the Forde report won’t be rushed out, it’s a potential fucking disaster, bravo all, well fucking done.
 

All is not as it seems.

 

Labour is getting bosses to lean on people to stop them progressing with claims of libel, from the leaks of emails of ‘right wing nut jobs’ in the party trying to position them for blame for the election defeat and the anti semitism ‘crisis’

So, the people fingered by the leaks from Corbyn supporters are being asked, by their bosses, at the behest of current Labour leadership, to stop their requests for a name of the person who leaked as this would mean the current incumbents would be being sued by their own supporters, the ‘ring wing shills’. So even though Corbyn doesn’t even have the whip anymore they can still sue the party, rightly and legally as their comments were taken out of context and produced prejudicially, if the person who leaked name is made public, though privately people know who it is.

 

What an absolute clusterfuck.

 

So Corbyns people are responsible for the suits, the libel, the fall out and potentially crippling the party financially and the ‘right wing shills’ have grounds for libel and breaches of privacy, that even Corbyns legal team know stand up.

 

25 of the 30+ claims have a strong chance of victory if taken to court.

 

Fucking bravo, comrades, brafuckingvo! 

 

 

 

That doesn’t read like an accurate summary of the Eye piece to me. It is quite convoluted and vague in places mind.

[Bruce Spanner]

10 minutes ago, Neil G said:

That doesn’t read like an accurate summary of the Eye piece to me. It is quite convoluted and vague in places mind.

I softened the edges...

 

It’s worse in print. 
 

[Neil G]

25 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

I softened the edges...

 

It’s worse in print. 
 

I’ve already read it.

 

Your post read to me as if it was the leaker(s) who could sue the party into bankruptcy if their identity was revealed (“Corbyn’s people are responsible for the suits”). I’ve re-read it and I’m guessing that’s not how you meant it to come across.

 

I’m still unclear as to how a) messages stored on Labour Party computers constitute private property and b) any wider context can mitigate some of the filth documented in the report. 

[Bruce Spanner]

27 minutes ago, Neil G said:

I’ve already read it.

 

Your post read to me as if it was the leaker(s) who could sue the party into bankruptcy if their identity was revealed (“Corbyn’s people are responsible for the suits”). I’ve re-read it and I’m guessing that’s not how you meant it to come across.

 

I’m still unclear as to how a) messages stored on Labour Party computers constitute private property and b) any wider context can mitigate some of the filth documented in the report. 

No, sorry, the leaker being named is the point at which people who were implicated can sue for libel as they have someone to to sue for libel and that person was an active/employed member and this gives the cases legitimacy for action against the party. The total cost of this is astronomical in the grand scheme of things, especially with how perilous the finances currently are.

 

The messages were from email and WhatsApp messages, so private information has been used to implicate the potential claimants and is compromised and, potentially, out of context in the wider picture, though this is subjective, but stands little chance of being upheld in an objective setting.

 

I agree the actions were reprehensible and I was letting things slip on here about what was happening at HQ with people deliberately sabotaging things, but here we are. A complete fucking clusterfuck.

 

Corbyns people are responsible for the suits as, whoever it was, leaked private exchanges, irrespective of your leaning. That’s just objective facts, they leaked private information, which was libellous and compromised individuals.

 

It doesn’t matter what your leanings are, objectively this is ridiculous, but due process.

 

 

[Gnasher]

21 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

No, sorry, the leaker being named is the point at which people who were implicated can sue for libel as they have someone to to sue for libel and that person was an active/employed member and this gives the cases legitimacy for action against the party. The total cost of this is astronomical in the grand scheme of things, especially with how perilous the finances currently are.

 

The messages were from email and WhatsApp messages, so private information has been used to implicate the potential claimants and is compromised and, potentially, out of context in the wider picture, though this is subjective, but stands little chance of being upheld in an objective setting.

 

I agree the actions were reprehensible and I was letting things slip on here about what was happening at HQ with people deliberately sabotaging things, but here we are. A complete fucking clusterfuck.

 

Corbyns people are responsible for the suits as, whoever it was, leaked private exchanges, irrespective of your leaning. That’s just objective facts, they leaked private information, which was libellous and compromised individuals.

 

It doesn’t matter what your leanings are, objectively this is ridiculous, but due process.

 

 

You're an insufferable cunt.

[Neil G]

10 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

No, sorry, the leaker being named is the point at which people who were implicated can sue for libel as they have someone to to sue for libel and that person was an active/employed member and this gives the cases legitimacy for action against the party. The total cost of this is astronomical in the grand scheme of things, especially with how perilous the finances currently are.

 

The messages were from email and WhatsApp messages, so private information has been used to implicate the potential claimants and is compromised and, potentially, out of context in the wider picture, though this is subjective, but stands little chance of being upheld in an objective setting.

 

I agree the actions were reprehensible and I was letting things slip on here about what was happening at HQ with people deliberately sabotaging things, but here we are. A complete fucking clusterfuck.

 

Corbyns people are responsible for the suits as, whoever it was, leaked private exchanges, irrespective of your leaning. That’s just objective facts, they leaked private information, which was libellous and compromised individuals.

 

It doesn’t matter what your leanings are, objectively this is ridiculous, but due process.

 

 

Ok, I’ve looked into it some more, and my understanding is that it’s not the Labour Party accessing the incriminating messages that constitutes the data breach, it’s putting them in the public domain with identifying personal information, i.e. names.

 

As for the libel element and their claim that the messages were taken out of context to make them look bad, my guess is they know that’s bullshit but that they know it’ll never be tested, as the party will settle out of court to avoid another bout of public mudslinging. They can then continue to use it as a defence in order to protect and launder their reputation.

 

I don’t think they’ll go for an amount that would seriously damage the party’s finances. Now that their faction is back in charge the party is too valuable a vehicle for them, their friends and families. Given the kind of language they’ve used to talk about other people, you’ll forgive me for being sceptical that they’d actually want the party to remain viable so that it can help people.

[Bruce Spanner]

5 minutes ago, Neil G said:

Ok, I’ve looked into it some more, and my understanding is that it’s not the Labour Party accessing the incriminating messages that constitutes the data breach, it’s putting them in the public domain with identifying personal information, i.e. names.

 

As for the libel element and their claim that the messages were taken out of context to make them look bad, my guess is they know that’s bullshit but that they know it’ll never be tested, as the party will settle out of court to avoid another bout of public mudslinging. They can then continue to use it as a defence in order to protect and launder their reputation.

 

I don’t think they’ll go for an amount that would seriously damage the party’s finances. Now that their faction is back in charge the party is too valuable a vehicle for them, their friends and families. Given the kind of language they’ve used to talk about other people, you’ll forgive me for being sceptical that they’d actually want the party to remain viable so that it can help people.

Agree, especially the last part, it’s all a massive nonsense and a very unwelcome distraction.
 

Yep, we know, they know, but the courts are not interested in speculation and could find in their favour, that’s the risk and potentially a very expensive one.

 

What a fucking mess.

 

On the finances, I’ve said it a few times now,  if any accountant with a semblance of competency saw the books they would pull them apart. There were some very silly, expensive things signed off that still need to be paid for. This is pretty much common knowledge and maybe this is what’s being dangled as a threat/point of reconciliation.

[Rico1304]

I think any court in the land would very quickly remember that Labour = good and the case would fall away.  That’s what we believe right?