Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Imagine if after all of that they weren't even buried in the graveyard. :lol:

Doing some quick research: "The bodies of Afif and his four compatriots were turned over to Libya, and after a procession from Tripoli's Martyrs' Square, were buried in the Sidi Munaidess Cemetery.[16]"

Sidi Munaidess Cemetery is apparently located in Tripoli (Libya for those shite at Geography).

Was the claim that he was laying the wreath on the graves of the terrorists? Or that it was a ceremony honouring them?
 
RedSky said:
Was the claim that he was laying the wreath on the graves of the terrorists? Or that it was a ceremony honouring them?
Click to expand...

Here's the claim in the original DM article:

"Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.

But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.

Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.

The plaque honours three dead men: Salah Khalaf, who founded Black September; his key aide Fakhri al-Omari; and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, PLO chief of security."

According to this, Fakhri al-Omari was one of the masterminds of the Munich operation.
 
2cents said:
Here's the claim in the original DM article:

"Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.

But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.

Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.

The plaque honours three dead men: Salah Khalaf, who founded Black September; his key aide Fakhri al-Omari; and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, PLO chief of security."

According to this, Fakhri al-Omari was one of the masterminds of the Munich operation.
Click to expand...

I googled them and got this: https://www.jta.org/1991/01/16/arch...-fatal-blow-with-assassination-of-two-leaders
All the other links were from the past week.
Based on that, and admitting my very poor knowledge of both conflicts, could Khalaf be compared to Gerry Adams?
 
berbatrick said:
I'm just showing my ignorance of both really - in my head Adams went from military leader to calling for talks, and he's the only one I know.
Click to expand...

Arafat would be the correct comparison for Adams. Khalaf seems to have been a more hands-on number 2, like McGuiness.
 
2cents said:
Here's the claim in the original DM article:

"Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.

But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.

Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.

The plaque honours three dead men: Salah Khalaf, who founded Black September; his key aide Fakhri al-Omari; and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, PLO chief of security."

According to this, Fakhri al-Omari was one of the masterminds of the Munich operation.
Click to expand...

So the Daily Mail running with the headline "Corbyn's wreath at graves of Munich terrorists" is actually misleading as none of the actual terrorists were buried there. Must admit, i'm very surprised.

Probably requires someone who isn't a Daily Mail reporter to actually translate the gravestone. Not sure what the number 28 represents on it.
 
Cheesy said:
The Daily Mail, Sun and Express all go beyond mild centre-right sentiment. Especially in the wake of Brexit. Not all of their criticisms will necessarily be incorrect but they deliberately employ bias against Corbyn (as well as Labour and general liberal sentiment) to the extreme with sensationalised stories, and tend to be among the most popular papers.

The Guardian's coverage of him is mild at best, but he doesn't really have any mainstream publication that's fervently for him in the way that various are against him. This can be said for Labour in general ever since Murdoch shifted back to the Tories.

Like you say a lot of the criticism made of him is fair, but the initial point suggesting that citing the mainstream media are biased against Corbyn as a conspiracy doesn't really work for me, because to a significant extent it genuinely is true. Bias shouldn't be called out at every turn (and this story is a perfect example because it's legitimate and fair to call Corbyn out here) but saying that the mainstream media is generally against Corbyn isn't at all conspiratorial - to a significant extent they'd openly admit that's the case. Broadcast is a bit different right enough.
Click to expand...

we have on this very page someone who argues, that the posted interviews are prove for agenda journalism. Lets recap: At first Corbyn lied about the incident and then he diddled around and tried to avoid to answer a pretty simple question, but the journalist who is asking the questions is at fault and somehow deceiving? Any decent journalist would have be a lot tougher and asked why he changed his story during the 48 hours about 10 times.

This poster is certainly not speaking for anyone but himself, but scroling through some of the twitter replies, this is one of the major themes of Corbyn supporters. Corbyn as a shitload of controversial baggage and is outside the mainstream. Of course he'll get some flack. Is he treated unfairly by centrist and conservative papers? Yes. Do they frequently scandalize and exaggerate minor issues? Yes. Still, its nowhere near as bad as one would assume reading the social media posts from his supporters. This current issue would pretty much kill the carrer of any mainstream politican. So apparently being differnt has its perks as well.
 
Last edited:
PedroMendez said:
we have on this very page someone who argues, that the posted interviews are prove for agenda journalism. Lets recap: At first Corbyn lied about the incident and then he diddled around and tried to avoid to answer a pretty simple question, but the journalist who is asking the questions is at fault and somehow deceiving? Any decent journalist would have be a lot tougher and asked why he changed his story during the 48 hours about 10 times.

This poster is certainly not speaking for everyone but himself, but scroling through some of the twitter replies, this is one of the major themes of Corbyn supporters. Corbyn as a shitload of controversial baggage and is outside the mainstream. Of course he'll get some flack. Is he treated unfairly by centrist and conservative papers? Yes. Do they frequently scandalize and exaggerate minor issues? Yes. Still, its nowhere near as bad as one would assume reading the social media posts from his supporters. This current issue would pretty much kill the carrer of any mainstream politican. So apparently being differnt has its perks as well.
Click to expand...


To this end someone from the Corbyn supporters group, Jewish Voices for Labour, was interviewed on the Today programme this morning, they were asked why Jezza keeps finding himself in these positions with these people. She began her answer "Netanyahu supports violence......" - the interviewer intervened, correctly pointed out that this wasn't answering the question. The woman then accused him of "badgering" her, social media described the interviewer as "hysterical". This is where we are now, the interviewer was neither badgering or hysterical, simply wouldn't allow someone to answer the question by completely changing the subject. Yet all day on social media it's been used evidence of media bias. A journalist insisting that someone answers a question they've asked them is now "badgering" and "hysterical"

There's a LOT of overlap between the support of Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn and one of the big ones seem to be how utterly fragile and precious its supporters are towards ANY kind of scrutiny and questioning of their leader. Because we live in a time where people think they're being informed by using "news" outlets that they know will confirm their own bias, any kind of outside questioning or scrutiny by journalists is seen as an "attack" or "smear". It's a troubling trend we're moving towards where there seems to be now a genuine hostility towards politicians being questioned or held to account.

Anything short of a Swarkbox/Canary interview where the only question was something along the lines of: "Jeremy, you've been smeared by lies in the media this week. Please take this opportunity to set the record straight, and if there's time please feel free to boast about the size of your massive cock" - is now deemed completely unacceptable and evidence of "anti-Corbyn bias"

In the old days politicians used to get duffed up by interviewers and have to take it on the chin. We'd all rather enjoy it usually, seeing Paxman put someone through the wash, even politicians we quite like. Now if there's a hint of a follow-up question #WeStandByCobryn starts to trend and hundreds of angry, salty-tear soaked letters get sent to Ofcom. It's more than a bit pathetic.
 
Last edited:
RedSky said:
So the Daily Mail running with the headline "Corbyn's wreath at graves of Munich terrorists" is actually misleading as none of the actual terrorists were buried there.
Click to expand...

This is not the Daily Mail's fault. Ultimately this fiasco is down to Corbyn, his actions that day, and his subsequent bungled attempts to evade responsibility for it. The interview above is as clear a case of a politician caught in a lie as you'll see.

The line now being pushed - that none of the actual Munich operatives are there, therefore Corbyn did nothing wrong - is an insult to our intelligence, as Corbyn himself obviously knows. It's like implying that it would be fine to lay a wreath for, say, bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, since they weren't actually among the 9/11 hijackers.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Certainly he believes the Palestinian cause to be legitimate but I can't honestly believe Corbyn reckons the kidnapping, torture and murder of athletes is a legitimate tactic and that its perpetrators are worthy of honour. I reckon your second paragraph approximates to the truth but Corbyn's always enjoyed my full support so my impression might be no better than fan fiction. My guess is that he was primarily motivated by remembering those killed in the Israeli air strike and this was front and centre of any efforts to persuade him to go. The finer details of who else was interred was somewhat glossed over as "more martyrs murdered by Mossad" and Corbyn was more than happy to go along with this.
Click to expand...

To give Corbyn a further benefit of the doubt here - he seems a bit mixed up over who was killed where and by whom, which suggests either ignorance on his part or else he was fed false information at the ceremony.

He referred to "those killed by Mossad in Paris in 1991", but apparently there was only one Mossad assassination on a Black September member conducted in Paris, and it was 1992. The three other guys whose graves he was photographed at were killed in Tunis in 1991, but most people think they were killed by the Abu Nidal group (rival Palestinian faction), not the Mossad. So he either just assumed the three were also killed by Israel, or else he was told they were at the ceremony.
 
Not sure it's a particularly convincing line that he's a man who has dedicated his whole life to the Palestinian cause to the point where he regularly gets invited by relevant dignitaries and personnel of interest to attend such events, yet at the same time completely ignorant about everything he just went over there and started laying wreaths without a clue as to what he was doing.

Either he knew, and so there are serious questions that can be raised over his character. Or he had no idea, in which case he comes across as a bit of a buffoon championing causes and getting involved in things that he doesn't really understand. Neither is a ringing endorsement.
 
2cents said:
This is not the Daily Mail's fault. Ultimately this fiasco is down to Corbyn, his actions that day, and his subsequent bungled attempts to evade responsibility for it. The interview above is as clear a case of a politician caught in a lie as you'll see.

The line now being pushed - that none of the actual Munich operatives are there, therefore Corbyn did nothing wrong - is an insult to our intelligence, as Corbyn himself obviously knows. It's like implying that it would be fine to lay a wreath for, say, bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, since they weren't actually among the 9/11 hijackers.
Click to expand...

Them pushing a false headline is their fault.
 
RedSky said:
Them pushing a false headline is their fault.
Click to expand...

The headline refers to the “Munich terrorists” as the “plotters behind 1972 slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes.” That appears to be correct. It may be slightly sneaky to also refer to them as the “Munich terrorists”, but that seems like a distinction that will only matter to those attempting to cover for Corbyn here.
 
2cents said:
The headline refers to the “Munich terrorists” as the “plotters behind 1972 slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes.” That appears to be correct. It may be slightly sneaky to also refer to them as the “Munich terrorists”, but that seems like a distinction that will only matter to those attempting to cover for Corbyn here.
Click to expand...

Not really, they mentioned Munich Terrorists to draw a memory to an event despite those remembered on the plaque not being at the event. It's like saying Osama Bin Laden was part of the 9/11 attacks. It's a cheap and false headline which isn't necessary given the story itself has traction. It's why papers like Daily Mail are trash.
 
RedSky said:
Not really, they mentioned Munich Terrorists to draw a memory to an event despite those remembered on the plaque not being at the event. It's like saying Osama Bin Laden was part of the 9/11 attacks. It's a cheap and false headline which isn't necessary given the story itself has traction. It's why papers like Daily Mail are trash.
Click to expand...

Ok then, "Munich masterminds" would have been more accurate, agreed.
 
berbatrick said:
I googled them and got this: https://www.jta.org/1991/01/16/arch...-fatal-blow-with-assassination-of-two-leaders
All the other links were from the past week.
Based on that, and admitting my very poor knowledge of both conflicts, could Khalaf be compared to Gerry Adams?
Click to expand...

So I starting doing a bit more digging and found I have a photocopy of about half of Khalaf's memoirs on my hard drive. There's a full section on Black September. Interesting read, but I can see how showing support for the guy is political suicide for someone in Corbyn's (current) position - completely unapologetic about the Munich operation, refers to the perpetrators as the "Munich heroes", claims the operation was a justified act of "revolutionary violence" rather than "terrorism" (he makes a big distinction between them), and so on. Never admits to being formally associated with Black September, but describes all the perpetrators as his friends, knew every detail of the plans, spoke with the survivors in the immediate aftermath. Blames all the deaths on Germany and Israel.

According to a source I'd trust a bit more (Yezid Sayigh - Armed Struggle and the Search for State, really good book on Palestinian politics), Khalaf recruited the eight guys for the operation, and remained involved with Black September as leverage in a power struggle that was playing out with Arafat and the Fatah hierarchy at the time, who didn't like the heat the Black September operations were bringing on them.

On the other hand, in Khalaf's memoirs he expresses some relatively enlightened views about the conflict and the Israelis (e.g. he claims that the Arab leadership in the interwar years should have done a lot more to reach out to the Jews, definitely not the kind of thing you see many Palestinian authors write).

In another book (The Palestinian People by Kimmerling and Migdal) the authors write:

"already in 1968, Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad), the man considered the head ideologue of the progressive stream of Fatah, suggested far-reaching changes in Palestinian goals that implied the need for a dialogue with the Israelis. Instead of simply calling for the creation of a Palestinian state in all of Palestine, he devised the formulation of “a democratic and secular state.” His idea was rejected by the Fatah mainstream and the PLO at the time because of its implied equality for Jews and because of sensitivity to its “secular” dimension, which could provoke confrontation with conservative Islamic elements."​

Going back to the Sayigh book, the general feeling is that Khalaf became more pragmatic in later years, generally kept his distance from Arafat, and had a relationship with Western intelligence, giving them information on the Abu Nidal faction which ultimately assassinated him (and the other two guys with him that day). But I only skimmed through this bit.

So it seems Corbyn, in choosing to double down on his original explanation, may have missed an opportunity to make something of a relevant point about the political evolution of a once notorious terrorist and what it might say about the potential for peace and all that. The political price for doing so may have been very high, but probably not as high as the fallout he's after provoking with his evasiveness.
 
Raulduke said:
The SDLP are not and were not republicans though and took their seats in Westminster unlike Sinn Fein. Any suggestion that there could have been the peace process we enjoy today without the back channel engagement with Sinn Fein and the IRA during the troubles is simply naive.

Also the idea that Corbyn didn't have talks with the SDLP when the SDLP take the Labour whip in parliament and he was involved with the campaign for the inquest into Bloody Sunday is pretty absurd. Here he is with John Hume himself.
Click to expand...

I agree gvts need backchannels but Corbyn wasn't a backchannel. He was a supporter of a united Ireland, and could have chosen to support this goal via the SDLP - ie peacefully. But he didn't. Also I'm not sure what that link
shows - it is from 2015 which is years after the event. Seamus Mallon, John Humes deputy, told The Sunday Times: “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.”
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
I agree gvts need backchannels but Corbyn wasn't a backchannel. He was a supporter of a united Ireland, and could have chosen to support this goal via the SDLP - ie peacefully. But he didn't. Also I'm not sure what that link
shows - it is from 2015 which is years after the event. Seamus Mallon, John Humes deputy, told The Sunday Times: “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.”
Click to expand...

You said he never talked to the SDLP and that link shows he attended a delegation to Downing Street with John Hume. I'd be very surprised if that indeed was his only interaction with Hume or other members of the SDLP over the years either.

I have a lot of respect for Seamus Mallon but that statement is demonstrably nonsense. Given Adams (despite his denials) and McGuinness were both actually in the IRA and both themselves integral to the success of the peace process.
 
Cheesy said:
Very evasive here.
Click to expand...

Are you lot serious? The media is a fecking disgrace. You answer one way (the honest way) and they'll paint you all over the front page. "Corbyn lays wreath at terrorist memorial". You answer the other (evasive) way and the media don't have the ammunition. The media ask the questions, and they paint people in whatever way they want. I genuinely can't believe how most people in Britain can't see this.

It's a fabricated scandal, and it's moronic to buy into it. Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia. Where of course, one would be expected to question every single movement one is asked to make. "Tell me exactly who I'm laying this particular wreath for" - like anyone would ever ask this?! It's a fecking wreath, clearly and obviously being placed in good faith, for a good cause, which he obviously believes in.

But all people see is what the media tell them - look how evasive he is. Can't even answer the question. No fecking wonder. People could be fed their own bollocks by this lot and they'd still choke it down.
 
Camilo said:
Are you lot serious? The media is a fecking disgrace. You answer one way (the honest way) and they'll paint you all over the front page. "Corbyn lays wreath at terrorist memorial". You answer the other (evasive) way and the media don't have the ammunition. The media ask the questions, and they paint people in whatever way they want. I genuinely can't believe how most people in Britain can't see this.

It's a fabricated scandal, and it's moronic to buy into it. Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia. Where of course, one would be expected to question every single movement one is asked to make. "Tell me exactly who I'm laying this particular wreath for" - like anyone would ever ask this?! It's a fecking wreath, clearly and obviously being placed in good faith, for a good cause, which he obviously believes in.

But all people see is what the media tell them - look how evasive he is. Can't even answer the question. No fecking wonder. People could be fed their own bollocks by this lot and they'd still choke it down.
Click to expand...

Then it isn't a fabricated scandal. Imagine the outrage if a Tory MP inadvertently laid a wreath on the grave of a prominent ISIS or Al-Qaeda member? He should naturally be careful in an instance like that, and people are naturally going to be worried that he's associating with the wrong type of people if he's hanging around with groups laying wreaths for terrorists.

I agree the media is biased against him. I agree he's been treated horrendously and chastised for nonsensical stuff. Read my posts further up the thread arguing that. That doesn't mean that every negative story about him is fabricated, or that he's never wrong.
 
Raulduke said:
You said he never talked to the SDLP and that link shows he attended a delegation to Downing Street with John Hume. I'd be very surprised if that indeed was his only interaction with Hume or other members of the SDLP over the years either.

I have a lot of respect for Seamus Mallon but that statement is demonstrably nonsense. Given Adams (despite his denials) and McGuinness were both actually in the IRA and both themselves integral to the success of the peace process.
Click to expand...

Well all right then, let me clarify. I meant that he didn’t talk with the SDLP during the Troubles - during the period when we are interrogating Corbyns one sided choices about who to talk to. And maybe you are surprised that he wasn’t talking to the SDLP, but the deputy leader of the SDLP is on record as confirming it. His point about taking the side of the IRA was presumably about being seen as a sort of honest broker, which you imply he was, via these “back channel chats” but which someone involved in the peace process says he wasn’t. That’s surely the point.
 
Cheesy said:
Then it isn't a fabricated scandal. Imagine the outrage if a Tory MP inadvertently laid a wreath on the grave of a prominent ISIS or Al-Qaeda member? He should naturally be careful in an instance like that, and people are naturally going to be worried that he's associating with the wrong type of people if he's hanging around with groups laying wreaths for terrorists.

I agree the media is biased against him. I agree he's been treated horrendously and chastised for nonsensical stuff. Read my posts further up the thread arguing that. That doesn't mean that every negative story about him is fabricated, or that he's never wrong.
Click to expand...

The problem with corbyn is there is a lot of this kind of thing in his past and he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because of it. And nor should he. He was a friend of lots of violent revolutionary movements and he is rightfully accountable for that.
 
Camilo said:
Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia.
Click to expand...

Happens to the best of us. Who hasn't accidentally placed a wreath on a terrorists grave? In Tunisia.
 
nickm said:
Well all right then, let me clarify. I meant that he didn’t talk with the SDLP during the Troubles - during the period when we are interrogating Corbyns one sided choices about who to talk to. And maybe you are surprised that he wasn’t talking to the SDLP, but the deputy leader of the SDLP is on record as confirming it. His point about taking the side of the IRA was presumably about being seen as a sort of honest broker, which you imply he was, via these “back channel chats” but which someone involved in the peace process says he wasn’t. That’s surely the point.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.
 
Raulduke said:
Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.
Click to expand...

Although that did give us some wonderfully surreal television. So there’s always an upside.
 
Raulduke said:
Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.
Click to expand...

You are right, my error, the photo is contemporaneous. The Guildford 4/Birmingham 6/Bloody Sunday campaigns were extremely important and those were terrible miscarriages of justice. But John Hume was the actual architect of the Downing Street meeting which began the process of that resolution.

Corbyn spoke to Sinn Fein but there’s little to no evidence that it achieved much beyond that, because he was seen as agreeing with them and their goals, which compromised him as an honest broker. John Hume spoke to Sinn Fein too, but he was able to help bring the Troubles to an end, because he did not agree with Sinn Feins methods, even though they shared similar goals, which made him a proper honest broker. That’s the point the SDLP dep leader alluded to himself.

I understand the position you are advocating, but I don’t agree with it.
 
I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?
 
The Purley King said:
I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?
Click to expand...


You can go on booking.com right now and get a room for £110
 
Why are people providing these polls as some kind of evidence things are going well. Worst, most divided govt in post-war history, about to drive the whole country off the cliff most people now don't want to drive over. 2 point polling lead in mid-term cited as "good news" for the opposition. It's a fecking joke.

Anyone who is a cheerleader of Corbyn should be absolutely fecking embarrassed by a one point lead here, two point lead there. Not promote them like it's anything at all to be proud of. Like boasting about winning the Sexist Paedophile award. Christ almighty.

But it's the new Corbyn normal.

- Finishing 2nd is the new 'winning'
- Failing to make significant gains in local elections is what oppositions now do
- Being marred in antisemtism and struggling to get message across is 'doing well'
- Within margin of error lead vs catastrophic govt in mid-term polling is considered going great guns.


All bullshit aside people would do well to reflect just how much effort has been put into normalising the above to the point where people genuinely see all of that as a positive. For me it's one of the only real achievements of his leadership, that expectation has been kicked so hard in the balls they now find some success in convincing people it's great news only one bollock is ruptured.
 
Last edited:
The Purley King said:
Excellent! Are the flights and the day trip to the graves and my wreath in the price too?
Click to expand...

You can get flights for about £100 too. Why don't you use your own brain mate instead of beleiving everything you read in tabloids
 
The Purley King said:
I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?
Click to expand...

That would be the Evening Standard edited by one George Osborne right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.