Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Former head of mi6 says Corbyn is a danger to the nation and wouldn't pass security vetting

273 replies

Sittinonthefloor · 08/06/2017 09:44

Because of his terrorist links. That's pretty strong stuff! In today's telegraph. Behind a paywall though but the first few paragraphs are visible.

OP posts:
Original poster
Sittinonthefloor · 08/06/2017 18:09

Is it a good thing to have no friends in high places? I would have thought having the respect of people throughout society was a useful thing in a pm. Or are all the 'people in high places' idiots - you don't think any of them have got to these elevated states through merit & hard work? Hmm

OP posts:
Original poster
Sittinonthefloor · 08/06/2017 18:12

Ghandi & Mandela were fighting oppression in their own countries, not a useful comparison. And it's not something we're allowed to say yet but I don't think everyone agrees with all of the methods they used.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 18:13

How does being responsible for a department that deported students illegally and without evidence rate on the moral-o-meter?

Just wondering.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn, but you'd be forgiven for thinking that May was saintly in comparison.

oldbirdy · 08/06/2017 18:19

I am a psychologist, so I do a lot of thinking about people and behaviour. I actually do think there is a difference between leaders such as Thatcher or Major or people with a specific job (eg Mo Mowlem) talking to "terrorists" and backbenchers doing so. Leaders have to speak to terrorists in order to try to negotiate and bring about peace. I have no issue with that, and should Corbyn become prime minister it could be argued that it would be an appropriate course of action for him to, for example, meet reprentatives from islamic state to try to bring about an end to the conflict. However, at the time when he was engaging with the IRA etc he was not the leader, he was a backbencher, and that means that he wasn't in a position to negotiate peace, and that is why I do see a difference; it moves his motivation to either 'i have a completely unrealistic view of my influence here' or to 'i am showing solidarity with your cause', either of which, frankly, is of concern to me.

Okite · 08/06/2017 18:26

Just on the has not supported antiterrorism legislation point, you do know that BoJo voted against the same legislation that Corbyn did?

prettybird · 08/06/2017 18:27

I think a lot of the poor and vulnerable in this country would say that Corbyn was fighting for them and that they are being oppressed Sad.

But that's not what the objection about him was: it was (in part) to go with his contacts with Irish terrorists - who from their perspective were fighting against oppression. Not saying I agree with them - and to give him his due, he condemned the killings by both the IRA and the Loyalists.

But I repeat: it's not up to the security forces to say who can or can't lead this country. Nor the Telegraph to insinuate that he's not suitable. By all means debate his policies - but it suggests that they fear they are losing the argument by going after the man.

God knows, I don't (even though I used to) and won't ever again vote for UK Labour - but I respect his right to lead the party for the moment

Original poster
Sittinonthefloor · 08/06/2017 18:33

Thank you for articulating that oldbirdy. I think that's what is so off about his past actions - I hadn't realised why though!
He had no authority, nothing to offer no actual basis for dialogue- and didn't achieve anything apart from a ' you' to those he saw as 'the elite'. Or did he actually support the Ira, I can't see how his 'talks' meant anything else as he wasn't representing or reporting back to the government of the day.
Serious rewriting of history by his supporters.

OP posts:
Original poster
Sittinonthefloor · 08/06/2017 18:36

The Telegraph are allowed to say he isn't suitable! Just as the guardian are entitled to say May isn't! Hmm free press...

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 08/06/2017 18:39

"The Telegraph are allowed to say he isn't suitable!"

Of course they are. People are also allowed to question their sources.

MsMartini · 08/06/2017 18:42

Exactly, oldbirdy. There was a lot of it about at the time - by people who had no power or influence. It was a badge of (dis)honour.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 18:44

Lets be honest, this is just a political technic to distract away from May's track record on security which has been under scrutiny this week.

bigmack · 08/06/2017 18:49

'Ghandi & Mandela were fighting oppression in their own countries, not a useful comparison.'
Not a useful comparison to who? Republican terrorists?

MsMartini · 08/06/2017 18:51

Of course. But I think it would be a cunning plan to pick a party leader without these associations. And in all good conscience, they make me doubt his judgement and/or intelligence and/or principles. I have voted Labour, and indeed canvassed today, but I was holding my nose.

DJBaggySmalls · 08/06/2017 19:07

What do you and intelligence agencies plan to do with this information? Other than try to derail a democratic election.

Justanotherlurker · 08/06/2017 19:13

Lets be honest, this is just a political technic to distract away from May's track record on security which has been under scrutiny this week.

So, maybe you can answer then.

Considering the Tories have increased funding to MI5 and MI6 and, under her watch introduced more slippery slope internet "hate speech" laws what could she have done differently?

Alfieisnoisy · 08/06/2017 19:24

All the while Britain are trading with the Saudis who continue to fund hate speech and organisations like ISIS I will treat any slurs on Corbyn with the contempt they deserve.

Justanotherlurker · 08/06/2017 19:29

All the while Britain are trading with the Saudis who continue to fund hate speech and organisations like ISIS I will treat any slurs on Corbyn with the contempt they deserve

Fantastic whataboutry !!!

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 19:31

I've posted repeatedly about it over the last few days!

sigh

Lots. Lots and Lots. In short.

Sostenueto · 08/06/2017 19:32

Saudi is a despicable country with a horrendous record on human rights. I don't care how much money the government gets by selling arms to them its dirty money, covered in the blood and tears of Saudi citizens.

Sostenueto · 08/06/2017 19:33

And in the blood of those killed by ISIS who they support. Where is the Tories decency?

Sostenueto · 08/06/2017 19:36

Red toothbrush totally agree.

Atenco · 08/06/2017 19:44

Justanotherlurker

That is not whataboutery. You are being asked to choose between a leader who talked to the IRA and a leader who arms the Saudis. Unless you think Tim Farron will get in

oldbirdy · 08/06/2017 20:06

Those of you upset about selling arms to Saudi - of course you have a huge point. My question is, do you think stopping cooperation and "friendship" with Saudi will help or hinder world peace? Di you think the UK government doesn't know how pernicious they and that regime are? Do you think their only motivation in keeping in with Saudi is financial? I think it is much more complex than that. I think upsetting the Saudis would unleash something far far worse upon us.

Sostenueto · 08/06/2017 20:28

Yeah they might stop our oil supply. Money is what it is about. Staying friends to stop 3rd world war sounds reasonable but if JC said that he would be accused of dealing with terrorists. The Tories say it and that's perfectly fine.

Sostenueto · 08/06/2017 20:31

So is giving aide to North Korea the same reason then? Don't get me wrong you have a very valid point oldbirdy about Saudi, but I would take the risk so my hands would not be contaminated by their money.