Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......

[peteblue]

Even the Czechs are laughing:

Reporting the verdict on the Sun’s story from the head of the Czech Security Forces Archive, Svetlana Ptacnikova.

The story states:

“British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, whom The Sun daily accused of cooperation with former Czechoslovak communist secret service (StB), probably did not know whom he was meeting at the time, and he does not figure as an StB aide in archive files, Svetlana Ptacnikova said on Thursday.

“Ptacnikova heads the Czech Security Forces Archive that keeps documents of the now defunct StB. The archive documents that mention Corbyn in no way indicate that he was aware of meeting a spy, Ptacnikova said.

“True, Corbyn did meet an StB officer who is referred to as Jan Dymic in the documents, but he considered him a diplomat, Ptacnikova said, adding that The Sun’s headline branding Corbyn a communist spy definitely does not correspond to reality.

“‘Mr Corbyn was neither registered [by the StB] as a collaborator, nor does this [his collaboration] stem from archive documents,’ Ptacnikova said.”

“On the contrary, the Czech archive keepers, who are studying the relevant files, have found signs showing that the StB tried hard to prevent Corbyn from uncovering the real identity of the Czechoslovak official he was meeting, Ptacnikova said…

“…Dymic was a secretary at the embassy in London and he was probably meeting Corbyn in his capacity as a diplomat.”

Would you expect them to say “it’s a fair cop, we’ve paid him in the past to give us info”, or would you expect them to say the above........

 

[peteblue]

Go to bed Pete, you demented coot

Now now Prev, play nicely.......

 

[hullefc]

But the question is who wrote the letter ? Historians suggest that it wasn’t the British and was probably done by White Russians. So how can you say the establishment, and I assume you mean British establishment, had anything to do with it....

The question isn't who wrote the letter. The question is the letter was known to be a forgery and known by MI6, who gave the letter to someone in the Tory party who in turn sent it to the Mail. The Mail published it 4 days before the election in the hope of discrediting the Labour party. Whether the Nazi supporting establishment figure and Mail owner Rothermere knew it was a forgery, is neither here nor there. He would of wet himself with the excitement of damaging Labour and gladly printed it. Much as those now are wetting themselves with the same excitement in their attempt to damage Corbyn.
In fact, Corbyn is as anti soviet and anti communist as they come, as anyone who ever heard him speak at meetings during the 1980s would testify He hated the Soviet Union and was a supporter of the 1968 Prague Spring. So the idea that he spied for the Czech communist party is fanciful to say the least and is being used to try and discredit Corbyn by the addle-brained.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The question isn't who wrote the letter. The question is the letter was known to be a forgery and known by MI6, who gave the letter to someone in the Tory party who in turn sent it to the Mail. The Mail published it 4 days before the election in the hope of discrediting the Labour party. Whether the Nazi supporting establishment figure and Mail owner Rothermere knew it was a forgery, is neither here nor there. He would of wet himself with the excitement of damaging Labour and gladly printed it. Much as those now are wetting themselves with the same excitement in their attempt to damage Corbyn.
In fact, Corbyn is as anti soviet and anti communist as they come, as anyone who ever heard him speak at meetings during the 1980s would testify He hated the Soviet Union and was a supporter of the 1968 Prague Spring. So the idea that he spied for the Czech communist party is fanciful to say the least and is being used to try and discredit Corbyn by the addle-brained.

Oh to have someone like Havel in charge of Czech at the moment.

 

[peteblue]

The question isn't who wrote the letter. The question is the letter was known to be a forgery and known by MI6, who gave the letter to someone in the Tory party who in turn sent it to the Mail. The Mail published it 4 days before the election in the hope of discrediting the Labour party. Whether the Nazi supporting establishment figure and Mail owner Rothermere knew it was a forgery, is neither here nor there. He would of wet himself with the excitement of damaging Labour and gladly printed it. Much as those now are wetting themselves with the same excitement in their attempt to damage Corbyn.
In fact, Corbyn is as anti soviet and anti communist as they come, as anyone who ever heard him speak at meetings during the 1980s would testify He hated the Soviet Union and was a supporter of the 1968 Prague Spring. So the idea that he spied for the Czech communist party is fanciful to say the least and is being used to try and discredit Corbyn by the addle-brained.

Of course it matters who wrote the letter and why. Apparently most of the government believed it to be genuine at the time. I’m not sure MI6 was in existence at this moment in time either as our Intelligence Services were effectively Military led. I think that MI5 was in existence and I also believe that they had doubts regarding its authenticity. This was not an establishment plot as you first claimed and it had almost no effect upon Labour, who were a discredited government anyway. Meanwhile, back to Corbyn who admitted meeting with this Czech ‘diplomat’ a couple of times, has he offered any particular reason for his meetings and if this is just a pack of lies as you seem to think will he be taking the various newspapers to court.......

 

[Connor]

 

[magicjuan]

Of course it matters who wrote the letter and why. Apparently most of the government believed it to be genuine at the time. I’m not sure MI6 was in existence at this moment in time either as our Intelligence Services were effectively Military led. I think that MI5 was in existence and I also believe that they had doubts regarding its authenticity. This was not an establishment plot as you first claimed and it had almost no effect upon Labour, who were a discredited government anyway. Meanwhile, back to Corbyn who admitted meeting with this Czech ‘diplomat’ a couple of times, has he offered any particular reason for his meetings and if this is just a pack of lies as you seem to think will he be taking the various newspapers to court.......

No, it was 'presented as genuine', in the same manner that WMDs were 45 minutes from hitting the UK.
Propaganda and fake news have been around since forever for nefarious reasons. The Protocols were still relatively fresh in the public mind, wholly supported as genuine and a threat.
The who is never, ever as important as the why?

 

[tsubaki]

Which records ?......

The records of the intelligence agency concerned, as mentioned in Socrates' post above.

 

[tsubaki]

Of course it matters who wrote the letter and why. Apparently most of the government believed it to be genuine at the time. I’m not sure MI6 was in existence at this moment in time either as our Intelligence Services were effectively Military led. I think that MI5 was in existence and I also believe that they had doubts regarding its authenticity. This was not an establishment plot as you first claimed and it had almost no effect upon Labour, who were a discredited government anyway. Meanwhile, back to Corbyn who admitted meeting with this Czech ‘diplomat’ a couple of times, has he offered any particular reason for his meetings and if this is just a pack of lies as you seem to think will he be taking the various newspapers to court.......

Labour weren't a "discredited Government" in 1924 - they'd been in power for less than a year, there was no economic crisis and the only thing that it had done in foreign policy terms was positive (stabilizing the Weimar Republic by sorting out their reparations payments). What they were is a Government that had no majority in the Commons; they were kept in power by the Liberals and when, with the foresight and acumen that has become typical of leaders of the Liberal Party*, the Liberals voted with the Tories in a vote of no confidence they lost the motion and an election was called.

The motion was actually called over the Government allegedly having the prosecution of a Communist journalist dropped, which perhaps might provide some background as to why the Zinoviev letter was created / leaked.

* the Liberals subsequently lost nearly 120 seats at the election, and never got them back

 

[Connor]

Ben Bradley, Tory MP (Maj. just over 1k) has been threatened with legal action over libellous tweets on the matter.

Just in case you needed any further indication to the truth of this 'story'

 

[peteblue]

Labour weren't a "discredited Government" in 1924 - they'd been in power for less than a year, there was no economic crisis and the only thing that it had done in foreign policy terms was positive (stabilizing the Weimar Republic by sorting out their reparations payments). What they were is a Government that had no majority in the Commons; they were kept in power by the Liberals and when, with the foresight and acumen that has become typical of leaders of the Liberal Party*, the Liberals voted with the Tories in a vote of no confidence they lost the motion and an election was called.

The motion was actually called over the Government allegedly having the prosecution of a Communist journalist dropped, which perhaps might provide some background as to why the Zinoviev letter was created / leaked.

* the Liberals subsequently lost nearly 120 seats at the election, and never got them back

No mate, the Labour Government wanted to sign up to trade deals etc with the communist regime of Russia and that’s what a lot of people were against and why the conservatives won back power. As you say, the Labour Government would not censure some guy who publicly called for the army not to take arms against anyone involved in political insurrection, and the Liberals and Conservatives forced a vote of no confidence. Also as you say, Labour didn’t really suffer, the Liberals did, so how was this an establishment plot against Labour.......

 

[peteblue]

The records of the intelligence agency concerned, as mentioned in Socrates' post above.

Do you seriously believe that cash in hand payments made by security agencies list everything that happens, or did you expect payments to be made via cheque from the Bank of Czechoslovakia.........

 

[tsubaki]

Do you seriously believe that cash in hand payments made by security agencies list everything that happens, or did you expect payments to be made via cheque from the Bank of Czechoslovakia.........

Do you seriously believe that an intelligence agency allied to the KGB would give tens of thousands of pounds to its agents and not expect that it would be accounted for?

 

[Blue 1]

Funniest thing about this thread is a supporter of May and Cameron, who sold a decent chunk of our nuclear industry to the Chinese, questioning Corbyn's loyalties over a meeting 30 years ago.

 

[tsubaki]

No mate, the Labour Government wanted to sign up to trade deals etc with the communist regime of Russia and that’s what a lot of people were against and why the conservatives won back power. As you say, the Labour Government would not censure some guy who publicly called for the army not to take arms against anyone involved in political insurrection, and the Liberals and Conservatives forced a vote of no confidence. Also as you say, Labour didn’t really suffer, the Liberals did, so how was this an establishment plot against Labour.......

There were 191 Labour MPs, out of 615. It was not by any stretch of the imagination a stable government and it fell the moment that the Liberals reverted to type, over an issue which would be seen as an outrageous attack on freedom of speech nowadays. As for "trade deals with the communist regime of Russia... a lot of people were against", they had already been signed by the Lloyd George government (when it recognized the Soviet Union at the start of the 1920s).

"How was this an establishment plot against Labour" is best answered by the fact that it was leaked, the fact that it was leaked to the establishment's paper, and the fact that it was leaked days before a General Election. Cui bono, after all?