Post-truth society

[matty_f]

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?

For whatever reason(s) we are now in an age where the strongest politicians are the ones who can deliver performance art. So those with the strongest personal brand get prominence and are rated, those still engaged in 'retail' politics and focused more heavily on ideas, policy and dull things like facts are squeezed out.

Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed.

[danhibees1875]

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now.
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now.
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

Could be

I think the amount of voter apathy and disengagement with politics might have a hand to play in it as well.

A politician can lie about something today to get what they want, and then shrug their shoulders when it comes to delivering it, knowing that the folk who should hold them to account (i.e. the electorate) can't be hooped or aren't aware in sufficient enough numbers to stop them.

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

[McSwanky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Could be

I think the amount of voter apathy and disengagement with politics might have a hand to play in it as well.

A politician can lie about something today to get what they want, and then shrug their shoulders when it comes to delivering it, knowing that the folk who should hold them to account (i.e. the electorate) can't be hooped or aren't aware in sufficient enough numbers to stop them.

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you re apathy and disengagement. The GE turnout has steadily increased since the Blair days, and I'd say politics is more a topic of conversation in everyday life than it has been in a long time (mainly due to the recent referenda mind you!)

As for the lies, I'm totally with you. I despair at the spin we are forced to try and find our way through. The whole nonsense with '50,000 more nurses' is a great example: the Tories were trying their damnedest to make the journalists/reporters etc look like they were making a petty point, when it was obvious to all they were pulling them up for lying. Utterly depressing.

I guess the spin has always been there in some shape or form, and we have to put up with the fact that a good proportion of MPs are in it for personal gain (career or financial). It doesn't mean there aren't good MPs out there though, folks that really are in it for the bigger picture.

Social media 'outrage' has a lot to do with it too: I think the world is becoming more polarised, and people seem to jump from opinion to opinion so quickly. Sport's a great example - at the end of the day, people posting on Social Media (and I include this place in that) are generally the ones with the strongest opinions, which results in a massively polarised debate. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it difficult not to come down on one side when such a debate is taking place, particularly if one of the protagonists is being unreasonable.

Enough rambling from me, safe to say I despair at the current situation. I'd love to say I could see a way out where reasonable people will come to the fore again, but I think things might get a while lot worse before they get better.

[Onceinawhile]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?

Because in general, people are terrible.

Terrible people go into the system and make their way to the top.

Anyone who wants to be an MP, is pretty much the type of person who shouldn't be allowed to be an MP.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

There is currently no such law and I strongly doubt there ever will be as, in order for it to happen, politicians would have to vote for it. The best liars are unlikely to vote to ban lying.

I wonder what it says about our society and electoral process, that it's a criminal offence to lie about another candidate, but not about anything else.

[Glory Lurker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now.
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

100% this. The sacrifices we need to make to save us from ruin are too much of an inconvenience to too many people. Sadly they damn us all.

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For whatever reason(s) we are now in an age where the strongest politicians are the ones who can deliver performance art. So those with the strongest personal brand get prominence and are rated, those still engaged in 'retail' politics and focused more heavily on ideas, policy and dull things like facts are squeezed out.

Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed.

I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time. A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like. I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post. This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate. The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem. When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time. A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like. I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post. This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate. The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem. When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them.

I think you're letting your desire to defend your icons cloud your judgement of what I actually posted.

"I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time."- I can't help that, my views are my views.

"A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like." - Is it? I'm quite a big fan of Jess Phillips. I think Sturgeon is a very effective politician whose politics I completely disagree with. Salmond - prospective trial and associated issues aside - is certainly one of the top British politicians of my lifetime alongside Blair, Thatcher and Brown. Despite his politics I have never, unlike some, found him personally dislikeable, if that is a word.

"I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post." - Perhaps silence implies consent?

"This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate." I know, that's why I posted about what I think is the changing way in which the electorate regards, thinks about and evaluates politicians.

"The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem." I agree it is bang on, but I think your problem with what I posted is more that it goes on to include two Nat figures that you don't want to see bracketed with the others than anything else.

"When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them." The notion that we can discuss truth and the state of politics without bringing into the discussion the contemporary politicians who characterise the age is not sensible. If politics is full of dishonesty, that is because of the politicians who animate our politics with their words, speeches, action and inaction. Without those politicians there is no honesty or dishonesty, there are just political beliefs.

Look at what I said: "Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed." My point here is not what I think you have taken it to be - that all in the list are shallow liars with big personalities or big public personas. It is that you can be Richard Leonard, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else with bags of policy (good or bad) but if you don't have the public persona part of the equation then all the policy in the world is not going to get you anywhere in the social media age.

You have assumed, I think, that I am also stating that all in the list are only personalities and no policy substance. I'm not. We are now moving or have moved from an age of retail politics 'here is what we have for sale, it's much better than the other guy, choose us' to an age of personality brand politics 'Vote for me because I transcend traditional politics and make you feel you are like me or that you get me'. You can't win in this new political fight without having both personal brand and a good offer.

And right there in the emergence of personal brand politics is where the capacity to be a stranger to truth and facts becomes so much less of an electoral liability. In Messiah politics, you have to buy into the cult of the leader completely, no half measures. That's why you can be threatening to die in a ditch one minute annd then blanking your previous bravado the next and get away with it.

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you're letting your desire to defend your icons cloud your judgement of what I actually posted.

"I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time."- I can't help that, my views are my views.

"A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like." - Is it? I'm quite a big fan of Jess Phillips. I think Sturgeon is a very effective politician whose politics I completely disagree with. Salmond - prospective trial and associated issues aside - is certainly one of the top British politicians of my lifetime alongside Blair, Thatcher and Brown. Despite his politics I have never, unlike some, found him personally dislikeable, if that is a word.

"I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post." - Perhaps silence implies consent?

"This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate." I know, that's why I posted about what I think is the changing way in which the electorate regards, thinks about and evaluates politicians.

"The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem." I agree it is bang on, but I think your problem with what I posted is more that it goes on to include two Nat figures that you don't want to see bracketed with the others than anything else.

"When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them." The notion that we can discuss truth and the state of politics without bringing into the discussion the contemporary politicians who characterise the age is not sensible. If politics is full of dishonesty, that is because of the politicians who animate our politics with their words, speeches, action and inaction. Without those politicians there is no honesty or dishonesty, there are just political beliefs.

Look at what I said: "Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed." My point here is not what I think you have taken it to be - that all in the list are shallow liars with big personalities or big public personas. It is that you can be Richard Leonard, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else with bags of policy (good or bad) but if you don't have the public persona part of the equation then all the policy in the world is not going to get you anywhere in the social media age.

You have assumed, I think, that I am also stating that all in the list are only personalities and no policy substance. I'm not. We are now moving or have moved from an age of retail politics 'here is what we have for sale, it's much better than the other guy, choose us' to an age of personality brand politics 'Vote for me because I transcend traditional politics and make you feel you are like me or that you get me'. You can't win in this new political fight without having both personal brand and a good offer.

And right there in the emergence of personal brand politics is where the capacity to be a stranger to truth and facts becomes so much less of an electoral liability. In Messiah politics, you have to buy into the cult of the leader completely, no half measures. That's why you can be threatening to die in a ditch one minute annd then blanking your previous bravado the next and get away with it.

You could have just said the words in bold in your first post as it would have reflected your view on the topic. You chose though to after making a very valid point to then as I said to cheapen it with a list of names. Your reply is very much the same. I like ???? but I disagree with them on ??? That’s ultimately making it about particular politians and their policies rather than the general distrust of politicians and as the op suggests their lack of honesty.

[jonty]

Some good analysis on how fake tweets spread
Fake news claiming the sick boy on the hospital floor was staged:
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/st...83081009262592

Fake news claiming Labour activist punched Matt Hancocks advisor.
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/st...49569082331137

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You could have just said the words in bold in your first post as it would have reflected your view on the topic. You chose though to after making a very valid point to then as I said to cheapen it with a list of names. Your reply is very much the same. I like ???? but I disagree with them on ??? That’s ultimately making it about particular politians and their policies rather than the general distrust of politicians and as the op suggests their lack of honesty.

No, it would not have reflected my view. It would have reflected yours.

It's impossible to to divorce the politicians from the quality and characteristics of our current politics and trying to do so to protect particular individuals from any responsibility deadens the discussion.

My reply is not "very much the same". You claimed that I had listed people because they are "people you obviously don't like" - I have demonstrated that in the case of two of them - and now three, below - what you have said is patently not true.

In any event you are missing my point completely, largely I suspect because you seem so defensive of those you support being brought into the discussion.

To return to the OP, how did we reach the point where politicians can now view the truth as an inconvenience and lie at will? In my view we have reached it because personal brand 'messiah' politics has displaced retail party politics and that is demonstrated by the rise of Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Philips, Salmond, Sturgeon, Blair, etc. They are not all as uniformly bad as one another but the advent of the personality cult - rocket fuel powered by social media - makes acceptance of post-truth politics by the voting public much, much easier.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some good analysis on how fake tweets spread
Fake news claiming the sick boy on the hospital floor was staged:
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/st...83081009262592

Fake news claiming Labour activist punched Matt Hancocks advisor.
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/st...49569082331137

Not a surprise but chilling to see it all laid out in black and white like that.

Our democracy is being eaten alive from the inside in this and a variety of other ways and most people aren't even aware of it. The parties are all complicit in this with their own direct and indirect social media operations and their various distanced dark ops programmes. It's all so easy and also provides a perfect Petri dish for foreign actors to engage in a very cheap form of disruptive and relatively invisible warfare too.

[Pretty Boy]

I would argue that rather than living in a post truth society, we live in a self truth society.

The rise of 'new media', social media and what is essentially unlimited access to data, sources and information is in many ways a wonderful thing. However in a society increasingly looking for affirmation from our peers there is a down side. If you go looking for it there is likely to be a stat, a report or a study that backs up what you are already thinking. Condense that into a quirky soundbite or a vaguely amusing meme and you have a problem that can snowball. I'm not sure it's an entirely new problem, it's arguably just more obvious now. The art of debate used to be characterised by an ability to both talk and listen. Now people are not only unwilling to listen to or consider alternative viewpoints but they get angry or affronted when you suggest that they should. How can a rounded opinion be formed if you only immerse yourself in content you agree with?

When it comes to political discussion it's arguable there is no absolute truth. Stats and personal stories paint a picture but the answers as to how we got into such positions are open to debate and discussion. Ultimately the truth, as we understand it, is what we hold to be true and in turn what we have chosen to dismiss as irrelevant or untrue.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would argue that rather than living in a post truth society, we live in a self truth society.

The rise of 'new media', social media and what is essentially unlimited access to data, sources and information is in many ways a wonderful thing. However in a society increasingly looking for affirmation from our peers there is a down side. If you go looking for it there is likely to be a stat, a report or a study that backs up what you are already thinking. Condense that into a quirky soundbite or a vaguely amusing meme and you have a problem that can snowball. I'm not sure it's an entirely new problem, it's arguably just more obvious now. The art of debate used to be characterised by an ability to both talk and listen. Now people are not only unwilling to listen to or consider alternative viewpoints but they get angry or affronted when you suggest that they should. How can a rounded opinion be formed if you only immerse yourself in content you agree with?

When it comes to political discussion it's arguable there is no absolute truth. Stats and personal stories paint a picture but the answers as to how we got into such positions are open to debate and discussion. Ultimately the truth, as we understand it, is what we hold to be true and in turn what we have chosen to dismiss as irrelevant or untrue.

This reflects my much deeper worry which is that consensus may no longer really be possible in Western democracies. In which case we are rather ****ed.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not a surprise but chilling to see it all laid out in black and white like that.

Our democracy is being eaten alive from the inside in this and a variety of other ways and most people aren't even aware of it. The parties are all complicit in this with their own direct and indirect social media operations and their various distanced dark ops programmes. It's all so easy and also provides a perfect Petri dish for foreign actors to engage in a very cheap form of disruptive and relatively invisible warfare too.

To an extent, but Cummings and his vote leave crew have taken it to another level entirely. Johnson is just a willing stooge who would have hitched himself to any wagon that would get him to Downing St.

[jonty]

And now when caught out, claim their accounts are hacked.
These people have no accountability and take zero responsibility.

James Mitchinson
@JayMitchinson

BREAKING: Sheree Jenner-Hepburn claims she was hacked. Knows not a soul in Leeds, she says. So, that 'good friend' that was used to debunk our story was - according to her - a fabrication.

[Ozyhibby]

Good analysis of yesterday’s biased reporting and lies from Peston and Kuensberg. Both will have to be watched carefully during indyref2.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/12/10/t...tion-campaign/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth?

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth?

The source of that facebook post claims her account was hacked:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-hospital-boy

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And now when caught out, claim their accounts are hacked.
These people have no accountability and take zero responsibility.

James Mitchinson
@JayMitchinson

BREAKING: Sheree Jenner-Hepburn claims she was hacked. Knows not a soul in Leeds, she says. So, that 'good friend' that was used to debunk our story was - according to her - a fabrication.

I've been looking at BotSentinel on twitter.
It does some analysis on accounts to check if they exhibit troll style activity

The first one it has flagged up is @RealDonaldtrump !

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The source of that facebook post claims her account was hacked:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-hospital-boy

Thanks - I seen something on BBC about them being scammed by a fake friend or something similar but didn't quite follow it. It still points to a problem we have in society with lies/truths.

Even once deleted it still gets shared and re-shared over and over so the job is done. Hacked or not, you have a story painted as being a genuine first hand account of what happened circulated to thousands. On this occasion, I didn't think the story was believable but it could easily have went other way; and clearly has done for some/many.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth?

That were definitely fake accounts tweeting to discredit the story, there are lots of tweets showing the exact same tweet from different accounts. It's a shambles, we're being manipulated on an industrial scale - real stories are being shot down so not even are we being lied to but we have people actively discrediting the truth when we're told it.



Really this is where you need an impartial source of news. The BBC *should* fulfill that role but even they have been shown to be biased and ultimately untrustworthy. Where do we go from here?

[Hibrandenburg]

This is the kind of slanted rubbish we're dealing with:

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.

I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.

On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit, he’s also a bit posh.

And on the other hand..

Labours Jeremy Corbyn Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.

Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna.

Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney.

Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament.

Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson.

Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly.

Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane.

Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists.

Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS.

Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview.

Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time.

Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview.

Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths.

Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants.

Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers.

Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain.

Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant.

Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists.

Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing.

Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey.

Didn’t support IRA ceasefire.

Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“.

Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list.

Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“.

Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist.

Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP.

Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag.

Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun.

Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker.

Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“.

Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime.

Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS.

Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria.

Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted.

Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela.

Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“.

Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader.

Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria.

Opposed shoot to kill.

Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC.

Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects.

Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS.

Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel.

Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK.

Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”.

Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”.

Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”.

Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich.

Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal.

Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”.

Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC.

Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO.

Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times.

Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad.

Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah.

Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS.

Received endorsement from Hamas.

Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani.

Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS.

Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel.

Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage.

Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers.

Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today.

Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers.

Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel.

Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group.

Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg.

Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group.

Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings.

Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops.

Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”.

Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj.

Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”.

Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer.

Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta.

Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen.

Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences.

Mocked “anti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services.

Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel.

Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John.

Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”.

Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible.

Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks.

Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”.

Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain.

Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime.

Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic.

Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”.

Voted against banning support for the IRA.

Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles.

Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.

Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group.

Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.

Voted against banning al-Qaeda.

Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.

Voted against control orders.

Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism.

So it’s a tricky one really

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is the kind of slanted rubbish we're dealing with:

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.

...

So it’s a tricky one really

Something of a small miracle that the Tories haven't made "Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up" their official campaign slogan.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Something of a small miracle that the Tories haven't made "Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up" their official campaign slogan.

Anyone would think that Corbyn favoured discussion over violence to resolve situations.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyone would think that Corbyn favoured discussion over violence to resolve situations.

Can you list the occasions when he has brought opponents together for discussions?

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can you list the occasions when he has brought opponents together for discussions?

See above

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See above

i.e. none