I just think your making stuff up and potentially putting the caf in legal issues they shouldt be
Please provide links so I can forward those to lawyers rather that your post on the caf
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Please provide links so I can forward those to lawyers rather that your post on the caf
No, he’s not making it up. This is currently in the news.
You did this the other day with me and used the same shield of ‘putting the caf in legal issues’. Stop doing that.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....our-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign
No there was an article saying internal rules beoken
He says fraud
I have linked to the uk fraud rules and questioned that is lts not fraud under UK legal definitions
As such link to these articles and I will refer them to the relevant lawyers
Or if its not fraud admit that and delete the posts rather that put naill in legal trouble
Its not to much to expect that if people accuse people of a crime they have evidence and if not they accept that the their accusations bring legal reprocrussions on the site owners and as such they may wish to refrain in unfounded accusations on public platforms because well its kinda the law
“In their submission to the party inquiry called to examine the leaked report, Corbyn and his former colleagues claimed the alleged diversion of some party funds during the 2017 election could even constitute fraud.”
Could... which as I say i have posted the legal uk definition...i can't seen that no provable financial or other loss therefore not fraud
Please post likns to people saying fraud as that is what was alleged on this site
So post me links to reports for lawyers to action as the previous poster allegaed fraud allegations not potential fraud...legally pretty different
Do you know what allegation means?
Please stick to the topic.
People are entitled to post their opinions, and when challenged, they're entitled to respond with explanation. Bickering and abuse is not helpful.
Reporting an accusation of possible fraud in the media, or fiscal misconduct is not a legal problem - but please be clear where/who the allegation comes from. Providing legitimate media sources always helps.
People are entitled to post their opinions, and when challenged, they're entitled to respond with explanation. Bickering and abuse is not helpful.
Reporting an accusation of possible fraud in the media, or fiscal misconduct is not a legal problem - but please be clear where/who the allegation comes from. Providing legitimate media sources always helps.
Hold on, there was no abuse whatsoever in the post of mine that was deleted. Did you delete the right post? For context the post was “Bobby posted that there had been an allegation of fraud, you asked by whom as you thought he may have made it up, I’ve sent you the link explaining and how it’s related to Corbyn” - This in the Corbyn thread, it wasn’t off topic and their was no abuse.
And a legitimate media source was provided.
Bit odd they deleted posts but left those incoherent ramblings about fraud and the forum getting sued which are clearly nonsense and derailed any serious discussion that could have taken place.
Apologies if I accidentally deleted any ports containing new information - I deleted a page full of posts that appeared to be going nowhere constructive, and that based on past experience would have ended with a bunch of warnings.
As to what wasn't deleted - a question was raised about redirection of funds and possible fraud, and that was answered with a link to the allegations, and some background information. My intention was to leave posts that offered context to that exchange - that's not an endorsement of their contents. In other news, I'm not perfect.
As to what wasn't deleted - a question was raised about redirection of funds and possible fraud, and that was answered with a link to the allegations, and some background information. My intention was to leave posts that offered context to that exchange - that's not an endorsement of their contents. In other news, I'm not perfect.
They rigged the result of the vote by *checks notes* voting for their preferred choice. Scandalous. Such a damning indictment of British media that genuinely dense people like Hodges can forge a successful career within it.
Bloody hell, I must have missed this one at the time. Imagine what the result could have been in 2017 with a normal press.
I don't even think the Mail or Express would ask such a stupid question
Shame on LBC
Anyone else read Left Out yet? I though @sun_tzu would have it on preorder. The story of how Labour fell apart, mostly the 2017 to 2019 period. Part interesting reminder of how it all unfolded, with additional back story we didn't know at the time, part comedy due to the rank incompetence of some of those in the Corbyn project.
Review, Link
Review, Link
Sounds like an incredibly flawed book from that review.
I’m not quite sure who the audience is for this, everyone knows it was shambolic - but a book with less than credible sources seems unnecessary.
All political diaries are biased because there was no objective observer in the room at the time. They're all based on the personal recollections of people who were there, and whoever those people are, they have their own interpretation on what happened. Sometimes two people in the same room think two different things happened. This is true for basically every book on politics. Doesn't mean there's no value in the genre.
As for who its for - anyone interested in Labour.
Did you read the review? It’s stating the obvious that people have different recollections of events, I’m not arguing that.
“Left Out’s authors don’t allow interviewees to take responsibility for recounting events accurately but prefer to tell the story themselves. This means we can’t judge as readers whether we trust their sources. The choice has already led to some controversies.”
I still don’t see who the audience is, and disagree that it’s for anyone who is interested in Labour - which implies a large audience. I imagine this will sell very poorly. It doesn’t appear particularly insightful.
Yes, I've read the review that I linked. I've also read the book itself. I chose the LabourList review to share to because I thought it was kind of balanced. It also describes the book as a "must-read... for any Labour supporter who wants to know more about what went on behind the scenes". Quite why you're writing off a book you haven't read I've no idea.
Let’s see how many copies it sells then.
Do labour supporters want to know more about what went on?
Maybe they do, would have been interesting to hear your viewpoint on the book. It wasn’t clear you had read it from your first post.
It's a decent read, most of the anecdotes can be taken with pinches of salt (as Rodgers said, the Costa one seemed to stretch credulity to breaking point) but the extent to which the Corbyn/McDonnell relationship broke down was the most interesting part to me, in addition to the Fisher/Milne conflict. Lavery is good comic relief.
I actually thought Corbyn and McDonnell came out relatively well. Corbyn's main problem was not wanting to make decisions or do leadership, but that was already well known. Beyond a few new humorous anecdotes I don't think there was anything there that changed perceptions. McDonnell if anything went up in my (admittedly low) estimation of him. Every time Corbyn's team shot itself in the foot, he seemed to be pushing in the right direction. Milne and Murphy come across as the real culprits. The ghouls of the old Labour right come across terribly, especially McNicol and Tom Watson.
It’s already had two of the stories it’s pushed to promote it debunked so I’m not sure it’s got a huge deal of credibility to be honest.
Depressingly true.
Id recommend reading it before deciding for yourself.
All I said was I don’t believe the book has much credibility. Given two stories it wanted to push were quickly falsified, that’s a perfectly fair comment independent of whether or not I bother to read it. I’ve seen several excerpts and I’m sure it has some value but clearly the authors have been lax in checking the veracity of at least some of what they were told. It would have only needed basic journalism to make some enquiries about information received, evidently they didn’t bother.
This seems a pretty gratuitous misreading of what they're talking about, which is that the government would be dumb to do it because it would allow them to be attacked.
People who have the book could just post the best bits in this thread.
Yep. It was just another excuse to attack the previous leadership. Ultimately that was the aim of the centrists in the Labour party, remove Corbyn at all costs. Not, try to influence the best outcome for the people in the country.
Its the personal recollections of people who were there. No doubt that was sometimes misinterpreted, biased or wrong. This is true of all biographies and political diaries. Its no reason to dismiss the genre outright.
The point is Dunt agreed with the person quoted that Starmer is right to be cautious in opposing Brexit (unless it’s no deal), when he’s forged his career out of feverishly opposing Brexit since the referendum to scathingly condemn Corbyn for the past four years. Now all of a sudden the big brained centrist sees the need for pragmatism and caution. Laughable.
We're entering the 'Starmer playing 4d" stage
This isn't the reason why Labour lost the election but it is the reason why the guardian writers are shite.
theory
theory
This isn't the reason why Labour lost the election but it is the reason why the guardian writers are shite.
theory
some of the commentators and political pundits and writers make it up as they go along.
Pretty much. Williams takes about the need to bring down the government(And not doing so would be unpatriotic, whatever that means)yet doesn't offering any way to do this. It just her complaining in a national newspaper.
A lot of them imo see politics as a real life tv show, politicians are just characters who come and go,while tricking the stupid general public. The pundits see it as their to review each new episode or plot twist afterwards. It's a bizarre and depressing way to look at politics but hey it pays the bills!
What are the falsified stories from Left Out? My copy hasn't been delivered yet but I'm quite looking forward to it.