The "Project" has been in place for a few years, originally intended to raise money for Jezza Christ's legal costs to fight all the injustices that had been heaped upon him by the nasty Mr Starmer that were actually the predictable consequences of his own actions. Whether it now becomes the brand of this new party remains to be seen, but it would seem the logical step.
Funnily enough none of these cases went anywhere. It’s almost as if they were deliberate attempts to cause a man in his 70’s stress that he really didn’t need. You could even describe these people as grifters albeit **** ones.
I really enjoyed your post last night regards your education and that of your offspring. It’s always nice to get a little colour and background, to give a better picture of the person you’re conversing with. Unfortunately, calling Corbyn a grifter, or using references to the son of God, it’s not really doing much for me. So I’ll wish you a great day and weekend.
Or protects the triple lock improves access to work and support for disabled people and rightly condems what's going on across the world....
You’ve got to be kidding me. You can’t condemn something whilst selling them weapons. I might parent my kids by telling them not to eat chocolate & then fill the drawers with chocolate every day.
Personally, I think this new party by Ms Sultana and Corbyn is a tactical mistake. Small, independent parties dont get the traction that established ones do and they have little to no grassroots organisation to start off with. They'll find it incredibly difficult to break through beyond a few seats (if that) and such will be the traditional hostility of the media even left of centre voters will be nervous about supporting them. Ms Sultana has definitely exposed a lack of morality and socialist spine re: the current Labour party under 'honest' Keir but, as I said, I doubt whether it will bear much fruit. If it does attract support (and I'm wrong) it will be good to see on the one hand but it may also further splinter the overall vote and help Farage by default. I applaud her but I think she's made a mistake because she's frustrated.
I wish you the same thing. I get a similar unease reading sensationalistic claims such as our government being complicit in a genocide, and its those GCSE History skills I referenced previously that identifies the source of such language as originating from a certain part of the political spectrum, no doubt fuelled by politicians such as those who are the subject of this new political venture. That's typically why I don't hold any of them in high regard.
And get ready for it all to start again on steroids' the Israeli lobbyists will be sh###ing themselves' they'll know Starmers days are numbered but would have fancied their chances of corrupting Farage and Tice' Corbyn though cannot be bought by them' cue the character assassination campaign . I wonder what they'll try digging up on Sultana?
There is enough evidence to suggest that what is happening in Gaza (and the west bank) is a genocide. Whether its the actions of Netanyahu and the IDF or the pronouncements of key Israeli ministers about the Palestinians or the fact that there have been laws against Palestinians in place inside of Israel for years there is a large body of evidence to back up the genocide claims. When we add to that the condemnation of various international bodies and countries (UN, ICC, South African government and others) these are obviously further 'sources' of evidence about genocide. Its immaterial which actors call events in Gaza genocide or not when there is overwhelming evidence it exists - it is stubbornness in the extreme to suggest otherwise. You may not like left- wing politicians for being left-wing - that's up to you - but sometimes its about being honest with oneself. There is a genocide occurring in Gaza. It is so patently obvious given the evidence that its surprising how many people try to argue against it or deflect the issue with 'Israel has the right to defend itself' sound bites.
Despite your dismissal of such opinion as sensationalist, the argument that the current UK government risks complicity in the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is rooted in hard evidence and international law, not hyperbole. The UK continues to authorise arms exports to Israel - including components for weapons systems widely used in densely populated civilian areas - even amid warnings from human rights organisations that these weapons may be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. Under UK and international law, such decisions are not neutral acts; they carry legal and moral weight. According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the our nation is a signatory, states have an obligation not just to refrain from committing genocide, but to actively prevent and punish it. The question, then, is not whether the UK is directly perpetrating violence, but whether its continued material and diplomatic support makes it complicit. This government’s posture on international legal efforts further deepens these concerns. And at home, the crackdown on pro-Palestinian protest and the smearing of dissent as extremism only underscores the extent to which the government is more invested in protecting a foreign ally than defending international law or human rights. These actions are not the hallmarks of a neutral actor. They demand scrutiny - not because the charge of complicity is convenient or dramatic, but because the evidence points in that direction. I’m not being sensational — I’m simply following the evidence where it leads, even when that evidence points to deeply uncomfortable truths about the UK government’s role. If you are comfortable with it, that’s your prerogative.
I didn't offer any views on whether it was a genocide or not. The sensationalism arises from the claims that the UK government are complicit in something they have no control over, and relatively little influence on. This is Netanyahu and his government's responsibility, as you've outlined. I didn't see Starmer or the UK government referenced in what you've written above, for good reason.
I could have accused Starmer et. al as complicit (as I believe they are for reasons YT has explained above) but I merely wanted to refer you to the evidence per se and suggest to you that the evidence for genocide is so overwhelming that it's immaterial which groups are proclaiming it as such. You seem to be arguing that because Corbyn, Sultana are suggesting it's genocide then it's possibly/probably not. Doesnt matter to me who proclaims what as long as I think they're correct. If Farage, Badenoch or Jenrick said it was genocide I'd agree with them. I can make my own mind up regardless of any pre-existing bias from others. It's genocide and Corbyn and Sultana have rightly called it out. The UK government is, therefore, complicit in my opinion
As I said in the last post, my issue is with the term "complicit" but you've assumed otherwise, as I perhaps should have expected.