Embarrassing all round for Pete.
Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......
- Thread starter peteblue
- Start date
- Status
Czech mate.
Top bloke was 'Aitch...as he himself said...'we never lost a world cup final under a labour government'
That said, clever means nothing, thats just brains, whose to say he wasn't a 'fellow traveller'...him and more than a few others of various denominations...I bet there was no shortage of free vodka in Westminster in the 50s, 60, and 70s
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Don't see why this is news, can't ever see comrade Corbyn ever getting involved in anything like this. Just cause you go on holiday in Russia and other eastern European countries and follow the aspirations of Stalin does not make you a spy!! 
While we're on the subjects of spies and dear old Boris...
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...-exposed-spy-good-friend-boris-johnson/17/02/
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
You can just imagine Boris giving out all the secrets over dinner. The funny thing is the spy doesn't even have to prompt him for any of it... The Kremlin will end up awarding him the highest honour for espionage for getting that much intel and he will sit there embarrassed that one of the 50 people at the dinner parties he attends could just record all the classified info that Boris comes out with once he's had one brandy.
Fedlingen
Player Valuation: £20m
Hahaha......they’re all getting named now.......
Moron.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
If you do not like my posts use the ignore button. If you wish to abuse a poster try another one.......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Fedlingen
Player Valuation: £20m
Wouldn't get my daily overdose of excessive punctuation if i did Pete.
Not abuse. Just a jab at your sad attempt to further a discussion with a caricature.
"Best post a cartoon". = moronic and sub-standard.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Part of an old Spectator article about Labour and the USSR........
“The merit of Anatoly Chernyaev’s diaries is that they show just how cheerful and trusting was the relationship between Labour politicians and trade union officials and Soviet Communists. Reports of the Labour party General Secretary Ron Hayward confiding in the Soviets his plans to capture the party machinery by developing a cadre of young activists may sound quaint today. Not so in 1974, when the Cold War was at its height. There was a whiff of social disintegration in the air and the nuclear-armed USSR posed an existential threat.
These diaries indicate that, by the 1970s, an alternative government was in place, handpicked by Moscow to take over the apparatus of the British state once the Cold War was lost. There would be a Soviet-style power split: real power would rest in the chairmanship and the bureaucracy, with the politicians simply the front men. Some of the Labour men the Soviets were grooming were paid agents, others fellow travellers. Yet even front-rank politicians were pathetically anxious to reach some kind of understanding with the Soviet regime.
Even today we still do not possess anything like a clear picture of how far this penetration stretched. The lure of Moscow is recent. It remains quite staggering how many aspirant Labour politicians were either members of the communist party or, like the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, influenced by the CP at a time when it was controlled by Moscow. The former defence secretary John Reid, for example, was a CP member well into the 1970s, while Peter Mandelson was an influential Young Communist.
Indeed the New Labour government which has governed Britain since 1997 cannot be understood unless these communist influences are taken into account. Many of New Labour’s characteristics — its deep suspicion of outsiders, its structural hostility to democratic debate, its secrecy, its faith in bureaucracy, embedded preference for striking deals away from the public eye, its ruthless reliance on a small group of trusted activists — result from the early CP training of Reid, Mandelson and others.
So today’s revelations in the Spectator are not a recondite exercise in ancient history. They have a great to tell us about our very recent past and how Britain is still governed. Yet Soviet infiltration of the Labour movement remains a neuralgic subject on the left. One of Jack Jones’s brightest protégés was Gordon Brown. And when I approached Downing Street to ask the prime minister whether he would withdraw his outspoken praise for Jones in the light of the recently disclosed fact that he was a KGB asset and long-term traitor, the Prime Minister dithered and dawdled. At length Downing Street came back with a robust ‘no comment’.”.........
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/11/a-poisoned-legacy-from-which-labour-has-never-quite-recovered/
“The merit of Anatoly Chernyaev’s diaries is that they show just how cheerful and trusting was the relationship between Labour politicians and trade union officials and Soviet Communists. Reports of the Labour party General Secretary Ron Hayward confiding in the Soviets his plans to capture the party machinery by developing a cadre of young activists may sound quaint today. Not so in 1974, when the Cold War was at its height. There was a whiff of social disintegration in the air and the nuclear-armed USSR posed an existential threat.
These diaries indicate that, by the 1970s, an alternative government was in place, handpicked by Moscow to take over the apparatus of the British state once the Cold War was lost. There would be a Soviet-style power split: real power would rest in the chairmanship and the bureaucracy, with the politicians simply the front men. Some of the Labour men the Soviets were grooming were paid agents, others fellow travellers. Yet even front-rank politicians were pathetically anxious to reach some kind of understanding with the Soviet regime.
Even today we still do not possess anything like a clear picture of how far this penetration stretched. The lure of Moscow is recent. It remains quite staggering how many aspirant Labour politicians were either members of the communist party or, like the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, influenced by the CP at a time when it was controlled by Moscow. The former defence secretary John Reid, for example, was a CP member well into the 1970s, while Peter Mandelson was an influential Young Communist.
Indeed the New Labour government which has governed Britain since 1997 cannot be understood unless these communist influences are taken into account. Many of New Labour’s characteristics — its deep suspicion of outsiders, its structural hostility to democratic debate, its secrecy, its faith in bureaucracy, embedded preference for striking deals away from the public eye, its ruthless reliance on a small group of trusted activists — result from the early CP training of Reid, Mandelson and others.
So today’s revelations in the Spectator are not a recondite exercise in ancient history. They have a great to tell us about our very recent past and how Britain is still governed. Yet Soviet infiltration of the Labour movement remains a neuralgic subject on the left. One of Jack Jones’s brightest protégés was Gordon Brown. And when I approached Downing Street to ask the prime minister whether he would withdraw his outspoken praise for Jones in the light of the recently disclosed fact that he was a KGB asset and long-term traitor, the Prime Minister dithered and dawdled. At length Downing Street came back with a robust ‘no comment’.”.........
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/11/a-poisoned-legacy-from-which-labour-has-never-quite-recovered/
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
A view that Corbyn never seems to criticise Putin.......
.......”Otherwise, the online cupboard was bare. On Syria, I found many more criticisms from Corbyn of British and American bombing than of the Russian variety – even though Russia has killed many more civilians than the allies
As to Ukraine, I could not find any criticism from Corbyn of any actions by Putin.
There are moments when he flirts with scepticism about Russia. In April this year, he said Putin "can be forced into all sorts of directions if sufficient political and other pressure is put on him”, but then refused to answer questions on the subject at a Federation of Small Businesses meeting.
However, I simply could not find any statement or proposal from Corbyn, since becoming leader, that would create any pressure on Putin to change his current policies. In all, the Labour leader has been largely silent and at best equivocal in his approach to Putin and Russia.
This silence is morally wrong on its own terms as well as politically damaging to him and the Labour party.
Corbyn has developed immense appeal to British voters as a straight-talking man of principle. Such a reputation is very hard to acquire and needs constant maintenance. On international policy, it cannot be compromised by selective attacks on evil, wrongdoing and threats to world peace.
Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party must decide once and for all whether Putin's Russia represents a threat to ourselves and our allies – or whether his actions are a legitimate response to Western pressures and threats. Does it actually believe, like so-many left-wing stooges for the old Soviet Union, that Russia would become a nicer country if only the West behaved more nicely itself?
Labour should also answer some specific questions.
Does it accept Putin's assertion of a right to protect so-called Russian compatriots in any bordering country? What support will a future Labour government offer to countries which consider themselves under threat from Russia, particularly those formally allied to us through Nato?
What steps, if any, does Labour propose for the restoration of Ukraine's frontiers?
Should the present economic sanctions on Russia be reduced or extended or kept the same?
Does Labour have any new proposals to induce the Russians to release to British justice the alleged murderers of Alexander Litvinenko?
Will Labour do anything to change Russia's dishonest and uncooperative response to the investigation into the shooting-down of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine more than three years ago, in which ten Britons were killed?
Finally, does Labour believe that Putin's Russia is a fit host for the football World Cup next year? Does it believe that British fans, especially gay ones, will be safe if they choose to go there?
Many people consider Corbyn to be the most likely next inhabitant of No.10. If so, we deserve answers to these questions before he gets there.”..........
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/10/09/digging-into-corbyn-s-silence-on-putin
.......”Otherwise, the online cupboard was bare. On Syria, I found many more criticisms from Corbyn of British and American bombing than of the Russian variety – even though Russia has killed many more civilians than the allies
As to Ukraine, I could not find any criticism from Corbyn of any actions by Putin.
There are moments when he flirts with scepticism about Russia. In April this year, he said Putin "can be forced into all sorts of directions if sufficient political and other pressure is put on him”, but then refused to answer questions on the subject at a Federation of Small Businesses meeting.
However, I simply could not find any statement or proposal from Corbyn, since becoming leader, that would create any pressure on Putin to change his current policies. In all, the Labour leader has been largely silent and at best equivocal in his approach to Putin and Russia.
This silence is morally wrong on its own terms as well as politically damaging to him and the Labour party.
Corbyn has developed immense appeal to British voters as a straight-talking man of principle. Such a reputation is very hard to acquire and needs constant maintenance. On international policy, it cannot be compromised by selective attacks on evil, wrongdoing and threats to world peace.
Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party must decide once and for all whether Putin's Russia represents a threat to ourselves and our allies – or whether his actions are a legitimate response to Western pressures and threats. Does it actually believe, like so-many left-wing stooges for the old Soviet Union, that Russia would become a nicer country if only the West behaved more nicely itself?
Labour should also answer some specific questions.
Does it accept Putin's assertion of a right to protect so-called Russian compatriots in any bordering country? What support will a future Labour government offer to countries which consider themselves under threat from Russia, particularly those formally allied to us through Nato?
What steps, if any, does Labour propose for the restoration of Ukraine's frontiers?
Should the present economic sanctions on Russia be reduced or extended or kept the same?
Does Labour have any new proposals to induce the Russians to release to British justice the alleged murderers of Alexander Litvinenko?
Will Labour do anything to change Russia's dishonest and uncooperative response to the investigation into the shooting-down of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine more than three years ago, in which ten Britons were killed?
Finally, does Labour believe that Putin's Russia is a fit host for the football World Cup next year? Does it believe that British fans, especially gay ones, will be safe if they choose to go there?
Many people consider Corbyn to be the most likely next inhabitant of No.10. If so, we deserve answers to these questions before he gets there.”..........
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/10/09/digging-into-corbyn-s-silence-on-putin
dandydan
Player Valuation: £40m
- Status