To think Corbyn has been exposed as a liar

[JonathanDunn]

He lied about the train. Aibu to think this is a show of character

NNChange as a former journalist and PR, I can't quite believe your naivety about how the media works. Maybe take the time to read LSE Paper on Media Representation of Corbyn

At tax payers expense? No, tax payers would far rather see an elected MP sitting on the floor reading a comic then actually making good use of the travelling time by doing some of the work that he receives an allowance for

Exactly. I don't see any reason why senior politicians should not travel first class.

YANBU

He missed the train he had a reservation on as a meeting over-ran. He wanted to talk to people who were waiting to meet him rather than rush off to a train and ignore them.

The seats without enervation tickets that he walked past were coach H - first class. He is of the opinion that politicians shouldn't travel first class, particularly when they are not on parliamentary or constituency business. He was travelling to a LP leadership hustings meeting.

Richard Branson started his empire by evading tax. He is a non domicile and pays no personal tax in the UK. His profits are threatened by Corbyns pledge to renationalise the railways. It took virgin trains 12 days to cobble together some cctv stills that blatantly do not illustrate their narrative and release them the day after ballot papers go out for the leadership contest.

couch What makes you think LSE Professors are any more trustworthy than the media?

If we can't trust what the media writes, surely that applies equally to all sources formally considered "unbias"?

I read that report on media bias. It says that most media reports relating to Corbyn are negative.

I'd really like to see a comparative report for David Cameron, Theresa May, Donald Trump, Tony Blair over the same period. I reckon that the negative reporting on Donald Trump (and possibly Tony Blair) would wildly outstrip that on Corbyn. Would that mean that there is even more unfair media bias against Trump which should be rectified by positive reports, or that he is a sexist, racist unpleasant bigot?

I worked in the media. It was never unbiased.
Research papers make clear their sources and criteria, and should meet certain academic standards.
Many sections of the media no longer demand a similar level of proof.

Stripey perhaps you read the report a while ago or missed the nuances? It isn't about whether politicians are 'unpleasant' or not. It's about access to coverage and column inches.
Personally I'm a massive fan of facts, figures and independent academic research but if you prefer spin and fabrication then luckily there is lots to choose from.

Research papers make clear their sources and criteria, and should meet certain academic standards.

What do those academic standards say about the titles of Research papers?

Only, when I used to write them, titles were expected to be factual, rather than emotive. Have things changed in Academia as well as in the media, maybe?

Snow me a politician who doesn't lie and I'll show you a coffin.

NN I suggested you read the paper not just the title.

My issue with JC is I have a hearing problem and when he talks it comes across so monotone and quiet I cant make out what he is saying.

The photo shows him walking through the carriage which is next to the snack bar. There's plenty of seats without reserved stickers on. I use this train a lot and they tend not to book that section up. Andrew Marr was sitting in that part of the train on Monday when I was on it..,

Oh, I've read the Paper.

But you can hardly use the argument that the content of this research paper can be trusted because of "academic standards" when it so blatantly breaches those standards.

The title is sensationalist. The motive for such a title is questionable, and that calls into question the motives behind the research.

APlaceOnTheCouch - I still think a comparative report with other politicians, including a similarly divisive person such as Trump, would be interesting. It might be (and I suspect it would) that there would be similar (and even more extreme) findings for Trump than Corbyn, but I wonder whether they would necessarily lead to conclusions of media bias.

I'm saying that I think the LSE research was flawed in failing to consider comparisons. Simplistic conclusions on Corbyn drawn from it might well be incorrect.

Nnchange
Eh? But we the Britonshave begin the great descent into the post truth politics,haven't we? Disregard academics. Absolutely never trust any experts except if they are writing fucking antibiotics for you.
AND you totally didn't understand that article.

Just been to Jess Phillips' Twitter page. She says something like "yes we all lie. We the politicians". Can't believe these fuckwits. Couldn't make it up if I wanted.

the moral question is: shouldn't all politicians highlight a problem that the majority of this country is worried about??

I loved his reaction to the media on the news tonight. He got in a proper strop and stormed off into his house like a schoolboy!
Oh so reasonable and nice when he's pushing his agenda but call him on something and he shows his true colours.

He is still the Tory party's biggest asset!

Slightly offtopic, but I had never traveled by train before without my parents bookie. We booked to go to Edinburgh and I (stupidly maybe) assumed that paying for a ticket ensured you would have a seat. Ended up having to sit on the floor with 3 kids and Dh who was a bit peed off with me that I didn't check, but honestly..I never thought that reserving a seat was any different to paying for a ticket. Haven't used a train since.

valentine what makes you think I haven't understood the paper? I agree entirely with couches interpretation of it as it is written - it's the validity I'm questioning.

Maybe the press portray Corbyn as a anti-semitic misogynist failure is because he is. Most of the press is even more derogatory of Trump an rightly so.

It was so obviously a stunt which has backfired.

I find it absolutely incredible that the leader of the opposition has time to read Private Eye on a long train journey. He should be sat at a table in first class, with his colleagues and WORKING.

I also find it inconceivable that the leader of the opposition doesn't have a PA to make his travel arrangements and RESERVE SEATS. This wasn't exactly a spur of the moment visit was it? The man is a complete and utter prat.

1. Validity questionable? Whatever that means ?? you accept the paper is well written but question its validity, effectively disregarding the data they incorporated in there? This is the first of its kind argument I have heard against that article so far.

1. People Trump's press coverage to Corbyn must be living somewhere sad. The whole point of that article is: Corbyn is IGNORED by the mainstream media AND smeared since day one.

Trump has had an absolutely documented coverage so far. My point is this: in a democracy we have to give time to an elected leader of the party to present his policies and their legitimacy. That's the first step. Then the electorate can accept or reject him/her. I had no idea what his policies were and every Charles Dick and Harry from the Labour Party PLP itself was very very loud in denouncing Corbyn instead of giving a proper account of his policies. This is my main criticism here. I want the right to hear him out and decide for myself.

Nah, I don't think he lied