you believe in the rule of the mob This sort of language is always the sign of a weak case. I may try it if I'm ever up in court and the evidence against me is overwhelming.
And the evidence against Corbyn on this matter is overwhelming, despite your dislike of whatever source. And despite your dodging my questions -- particularly about McDonnell's 'apology'....
Corbyn encouraged the Prov'-IRA back when they were murdering his fellow MP's and citizens. You've been provided with copious amounts of evidence and direct testimony that go towards proving the fact. He supported and encouraged them to carry on killing and racketeering and continues to lie about it. This is the view of Ireland’s Taoiseach. The man at the centre of the peace process, Seamus Mallon. The security services and even a former member of the the PIRA.
Gerry Adams came to Westminster for Tea at Corbyn's request in 1984, [the man who a couple of weeks earlier, ok'd the attempted murder of the woman who's office Corbyn now covets] and he wasn't arrested either. What does that tell us. That he ought not to have been?
Or that he wasn't an evil bastard, happy to slaughter and maim innocent civilians to further his aims?
Those points you listed are from the Terrorism Act 2006 BTW. Corbyn's actions took place long before that.
This position of yours that: he wasn't charged so couldn't have been guilty' is a strawman and I suspect mainly motivated by a need to have the last word.
This is not as you claim "besides the point" either. It is key to understanding why Labour, in the last GE couldn't even beat he most unpopular, hapless Conservative leader in living memory, who held possibly the worst election campaign ever. Corbyn is utterly reprehensible to the decent majority of people in this country and if he cared one iota for the labour Party, would haul his contemptible hide off to the back benches to wage on with his ancient battles alone...