Nice Spectator take-down of Corbyn's previous support for the IRA

[Monty92]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

[The Jorge]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

As if this place wasnt enough of a right-wing echo chamber.

[TheCurly]

It's a load of old bollox mate.

[Burney]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

Well of course that was the main thing that nobody associated with the Peace Process was allowed to say at the time - and are still very wary of even today: that the IRA was militarily defeated. It was deliberately represented as a mutual decision when it was nothing of the sort in order to allow the Republican movement to save some face. That's why splinter groups like the Real IRA were such an embarrassment to Sinn Fein et al - they knew what the truth was and their very existence was proof of it.

[Monty92]

As if this place wasnt enough of a right-wing echo chamber.

What do you disagree with?

[The Jorge]

What do you disagree with?

The whole premise that the British were totally blameless in the whole thing, for starters.

[TheCurly]

Well of course that was the main thing that nobody associated with the Peace Process was allowed to say at the time - and are still very wary of even today: that the IRA was militarily defeated. It was deliberately represented as a mutual decision when it was nothing of the sort in order to allow the Republican movement to save some face. That's why splinter groups like the Real IRA were such an embarrassment to Sinn Fein et al - they knew what the truth was and their very existence was proof of it.

Fair point on the military aspect but it was Canary Wharf that brought the British to the table not some noble gesture for peace

[Burney]

The whole premise that the British were totally blameless in the whole thing, for starters.

I've seen nothing anywhere in that piece where it says that. You're making stuff up to distract from the point, again.

By the way, for those of us who haven't spent our lives on the fringes of the left and can't quite perform the necessary logical gymnastics, perhaps you could explain to me exactly how your chum Jeremy reconciles his unwavering support for organisations for which the use of violence is at their core with his much-avowed pacifism? Only to the outside observer, it looks a lot like his instinctive hatred of Britain, the US, Israel and all forms of (as he sees it) imperialism renders him incapable of any logical consistency on the matter. In other words, he's only a fan of pacifism when it's practised by the west.

[Burney]

Fair point on the military aspect but it was Canary Wharf that brought the British to the table not some noble gesture for peace

But Canary Wharf (and subsequently Omagh by the Real IRA) were essentially admissions by the IRA that they could no longer operate against hard, military targets and were reduced to hitting soft, civilian targets. Sinn Fein and the IRA knew very well that campaigns solely targeting civilians would rapidly erode any support they had here or abroad, so they knew that they were in serious trouble without being able to attack their avowed enemy of Crown forces, since that was their raison d'etre.

Sure, the British government was prepared to negotiate to stop such attacks, but they were negotiating from a position of strength, while the Republican movement was doing so from a position of weakness.

[Monty92]

I've seen nothing anywhere in that piece where it says that. You're making stuff up to distract from the point, again.

By the way, for those of us who haven't spent our lives on the fringes of the left and can't quite perform the necessary logical gymnastics, perhaps you could explain to me exactly how your chum Jeremy reconciles his unwavering support for organisations for which the use of violence is at their core with his much-avowed pacifism? Only to the outside observer, it looks a lot like his instinctive hatred of Britain, the US, Israel and all forms of (as he sees it) imperialism renders him incapable of any logical consistency on the matter. In other words, he's only a fan of pacifism when it's practised by the west.

I also think the article encapsulates why people SHOULD be damned by association. See also: our new mayor, who has only now distanced himself from the extremists he once supported because he's decided to put his career before his hatred of the west.

[The Jorge]

I've seen nothing anywhere in that piece where it says that. You're making stuff up to distract from the point, again.

By the way, for those of us who haven't spent our lives on the fringes of the left and can't quite perform the necessary logical gymnastics, perhaps you could explain to me exactly how your chum Jeremy reconciles his unwavering support for organisations for which the use of violence is at their core with his much-avowed pacifism? Only to the outside observer, it looks a lot like his instinctive hatred of Britain, the US, Israel and all forms of (as he sees it) imperialism renders him incapable of any logical consistency on the matter. In other words, he's only a fan of pacifism when it's practised by the west.

No, I was asked what I objected to and that was my answer. The whole article is based on the idea that the republican struggle, which is what he supported, was an unjust one.

And as for your "instinctive hatred of Britain" ****, do me a favour, if the west ever practiced even the slightest form of pacifism you'd be the first to complain.

[The Jorge]

I also think the article encapsulates why people SHOULD be damned by association. See also: our new mayor, who has only now distanced himself from the extremists he once supported because he's decided to put his career before his hatred of the west.

I think we need to talk about the right's problem with Islamaphbia

[Burney]

I also think the article encapsulates why people SHOULD be damned by association. See also: our new mayor, who has only now distanced himself from the extremists he once supported because he's decided to put his career before his hatred of the west.

Khan's just responding to his constituencies. Once, his constituency was mad beardy Allans, so he said what they wanted to hear. Now, his constituency is the whole of London, so he's changed his tack. I don't really have any problem with that. It's just politics.

Indeed, I find it quite comforting that he clearly doesn't hold any actual principles or adhere to any ideology. You can do business with a chap like that. In that sense, he's vastly preferable to Corbyn, who I get the distinct feeling actually believes all the **** he comes out with. :shudder:

[Burney]

No, I was asked what I objected to and that was my answer. The whole article is based on the idea that the republican struggle, which is what he supported, was an unjust one.

And as for your "instinctive hatred of Britain" ****, do me a favour, if the west ever practiced even the slightest form of pacifism you'd be the first to complain.

No. You're wrong. The article makes it very clear that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with wanting a united Ireland, but that there was a clear choice available between choosing violent, non-democratic means (the IRA) and choosing non-violent, democratic means (the SDLP). Corbyn et al chose the former.

And you've failed to answer the question about how he reconciles his 'pacifism' with support for terrorist murder. I have never advocated any form of pacifism by the west, since it would be suicidally stupid.

[Monty92]

Khan's just responding to his constituencies. Once, his constituency was mad beardy Allans, so he said what they wanted to hear. Now, his constituency is the whole of London, so he's changed his tack. I don't really have any problem with that. It's just politics.

Indeed, I find it quite comforting that he clearly doesn't hold any actual principles or adhere to any ideology. You can do business with a chap like that. In that sense, he's vastly preferable to Corbyn, who I get the distinct feeling actually believes all the **** he comes out with. :shudder:

This is the most optimistic explanation for his past associations, yes. But the fact is our institutions are riddled with islamist sympathisers posing as moderates, so he remains under strong suspicion in my book.

[The Jorge]

No. You're wrong. The article makes it very clear that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with wanting a united Ireland, but that there was a clear choice available between choosing violent, non-democratic means (the IRA) and choosing non-violent, democratic means (the SDLP). Corbyn et al chose the former.

And you've failed to answer the question about how he reconciles his 'pacifism' with support for terrorist murder. I have never advocated any form of pacifism by the west, since it would be suicidally stupid.

We've been here before and surprisingly enough we never agreed then. Though it would be lovely if you could clarify why you think "terrorist murder" is wrong whereas you see no moral problems with supporting the same act when it's dressed up in a uniform. It's just, to the untrained eye, you do seem to be guilty of the same double standards you're accusing Corbyn of.

[Burney]

We've been here before and surprisingly enough we never agreed then. Though it would be lovely if you could clarify why you think "terrorist murder" is wrong whereas you see no moral problems with supporting the same act when it's dressed up in a uniform. It's just, to the untrained eye, you do seem to be guilty of the same double standards you're accusing Corbyn of.

Well my definition of terrorist murder is certainly subjective, I'll agree. However, whether or not you call it that or 'legitimate armed struggle', it still amounts to the same thing - killing people. So, I'll ask you again: how does Corbyn reconcile his support for those who kill people with his pacifism?

[The Jorge]

Well my definition of terrorist murder is certainly subjective, I'll agree. However, whether or not you call it that or 'legitimate armed struggle', it still amounts to the same thing - killing people. So, I'll ask you again: how does Corbyn reconcile his support for those who kill people with his pacifism?

Just to be clear here, you're asking me to speak on behalf of someone else when you cant even speak on behalf of yourself, yes?

You love violence, you actively cheerlead for it, yet you put a balaclava on it and suddenly it's haraam. I'd say that makes less sense.

[Luis Anaconda]

This is the most optimistic explanation for his past associations, yes. But the fact is our institutions are riddled with islamist sympathisers posing as moderates, so he remains under strong suspicion in my book.

:hehe: :hehe: :tinfoil:

[Luis Anaconda]

Just to be clear here, you're asking me to speak on behalf of someone else when you cant even speak on behalf of yourself, yes?

You love violence, you actively cheerlead for it, yet you put a balaclava on it and suddenly it's haraam. I'd say that makes less sense.

tbf Balaclavas are a crime against fashion

[redgunamo]

tbf Balaclavas are a crime against fashion

Delicious though.

[Ash]

So, I'll ask you again: how does Corbyn reconcile his support for those who kill people with his pacifism?

By not being a pacifist and accepting violence only as a last resort.

"I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war as a very last resort."

From that view it is possible to see armed struggle in Ireland as a legitimate, last-resort response to a war of occupation.

[Burney]

Just to be clear here, you're asking me to speak on behalf of someone else when you cant even speak on behalf of yourself, yes?

You love violence, you actively cheerlead for it, yet you put a balaclava on it and suddenly it's haraam. I'd say that makes less sense.

I can certainly speak on behalf of myself. Where have I given the impression I cannot? And my attitude to violence is not in question. I believe it is a means to an end and am happy for it to be used in the pursuance of the western way of life. I oppose those who oppose or threaten that way of life and have no problem with the use of violence to that end.

However, I am asking you this because you have evinced considerable support for Corbyn and claimed that you believe him to be principled and honest. So I would actually like you to speak to his 'principled' nature in this instance where his principles and honesty seem a wee bit questionable and contradictory to say the least, yes. And I notice that you keep failing to provide any answer.

You seem a touch rattled, j. I wonder why? :rubchin:

[redgunamo]

By not being a pacifist and accepting violence only as a last resort.

"I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war as a very last resort."

From that view it is possible to see armed struggle in Ireland as a legitimate, last-resort response to a war of occupation.

Dishonest, imo, as it would never be his call in any case.

[Ash]

Dishonest, imo, as it would never be his call in any case.

What wouldn't be his call?

[Burney]

By not being a pacifist and accepting violence only as a last resort.

"I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war as a very last resort."

From that view it is possible to see armed struggle in Ireland as a legitimate, last-resort response to a war of occupation.

Right. Only you've kind of just made my point for me. This is a man who has opposed all and any use of western military force against aggressive, murderous dictators who have broken international law and invaded sovereign territory - from the Falklands to the first Gulf War - but is miraculously able to justify the use of armed, lethal force by the IRA against civilians within a democratic system and against the democratic will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland as 'an act of last resort'?

Does that not tell you quite how fluid his 'principles' are? And that they are, in fact, nothing of the sort, but merely the symptoms of his instinctive opposition to Britain and the west in favour of anyone - anyone - who happens to oppose them?

[redgunamo]

What wouldn't be his call?

To pull the trigger, press the button etc.

[The Jorge]

I can certainly speak on behalf of myself. Where have I given the impression I cannot? And my attitude to violence is not in question. I believe it is a means to an end and am happy for it to be used in the pursuance of the western way of life. I oppose those who oppose or threaten that way of life and have no problem with the use of violence to that end.

However, I am asking you this because you have evinced considerable support for Corbyn and claimed that you believe him to be principled and honest. So I would actually like you to speak to his 'principled' nature in this instance where his principles and honesty seem a wee bit questionable and contradictory to say the least, yes. And I notice that you keep failing to provide any answer.

You seem a touch rattled, j. I wonder why? :rubchin:

I'm really not that rattled, I asure you. I think the confusion here is over the fact he supports their causes, which is obviously different from supporting whatever means they've had to resort to to achieve them.

Also, your attitude to violence is in question as you seem more than capable of the same rhetorical gymnastics you're accusing him of employing.

[Burney]

he supports their causes, which is obviously different from supporting whatever means they've had to resort to to achieve them.

:hehe: Let's have a look at that, shall we? Let's consider the sheer abdication of moral responsibilty inherent to such a position, shall we? "Of course I'd like to see the State of Israel destroyed, Abu, but if you start telling me what has to happen to bring such a situation about, I'll put my fingers in my ears and shout 'lalalalalalalalalalalalala'" :hehe:

When you are supporting the IRA, you are supporting violence. They have the word 'Army' in their title, so they weren't hiding anything there. The same goes for Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom are constitutionally committed to violence. You can't separate supporting their causes and lauding individuals from those organisations and then wash your hands of how they intend to pursue it. It's morally dishonest and cowardly to do so.

[TheCurly]

:hehe: Let's have a look at that, shall we? Let's consider the sheer abdication of moral responsibilty inherent to such a position, shall we? "Of course I'd like to see the State of Israel destroyed, Abu, but if you start telling me what has to happen to bring such a situation about, I'll put my fingers in my ears and shout 'lalalalalalalalalalalalala'" :hehe:

When you are supporting the IRA, you are supporting violence. They have the word 'Army' in their title, so they weren't hiding anything there. The same goes for Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom are constitutionally committed to violence. You can't separate supporting their causes and lauding individuals from those organisations and then wash your hands of how they intend to pursue it. It's morally dishonest and cowardly to do so.

Whether he's guilty or not is not the point I objected to.It was a poorly written piece imo.To equate someone speaking at a Troops Out rally with wanting the provos to win was trite at best.It was just a dagger piece with no real investigative insights is all

[Luis Anaconda]

Whether he's guilty or not is not the point I objected to.It was a poorly written piece imo.To equate someone speaking at a Troops Out rally with wanting the provos to win was trite at best.It was just a dagger piece with no real investigative insights is all
Very true - and absolutely nothing new in it. Would be interesting for Monty to actually explain what insights he gained from it and why he deemed it worthy of posting tbh

[Pokster]

Very true - and absolutely nothing new in it. Would be interesting for Monty to actually explain what insights he gained from it and why he deemed it worthy of posting tbh

Because Monty likes getting a subject and going over it again and again until we are so bored we resort to telling the boring **** to shut up..... imo

[The Jorge]

:hehe: Let's have a look at that, shall we? Let's consider the sheer abdication of moral responsibilty inherent to such a position, shall we? "Of course I'd like to see the State of Israel destroyed, Abu, but if you start telling me what has to happen to bring such a situation about, I'll put my fingers in my ears and shout 'lalalalalalalalalalalalala'" :hehe:

When you are supporting the IRA, you are supporting violence. They have the word 'Army' in their title, so they weren't hiding anything there. The same goes for Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom are constitutionally committed to violence. You can't separate supporting their causes and lauding individuals from those organisations and then wash your hands of how they intend to pursue it. It's morally dishonest and cowardly to do so.

And by that rationale, when you're supporting "The West" you are also supporting violence. There's no absolutist position here, everyone's hands are dirty. And he isnt "lauding" anyone, he describes everyone as his "friends" when he's around the table with them.

[Burney]

And by that rationale, when you're supporting "The West" you are also supporting violence. There's no absolutist position here, everyone's hands are dirty. And he isnt "lauding" anyone, he describes everyone as his "friends" when he's around the table with them.

I have never suggested I don't support violence by the west. There is no inherent contradiction in my stance, but there is in Corbyn's. Harping on me supporting violence is meaningless.

His calling people his 'friends' would be less sinister if he'd ever 'sat down' with more than one side in any of his pet conflicts. He didn't. He chose his 'friends'; carefully and ignored the points of view of others. I would call that lauding.

[Burney]

Whether he's guilty or not is not the point I objected to.It was a poorly written piece imo.To equate someone speaking at a Troops Out rally with wanting the provos to win was trite at best.It was just a dagger piece with no real investigative insights is all

Come, come, let's not be naive here, c. The Troops Out Movement was committed to the withdrawal of British government and forces from Northern Ireland at a time when the IRA were conducting a military campaign to the same ends. How can support for the troops out movement therefore not equate to 'wanting the provos to win', since that would have been the de facto outcome had their demands been met?

The piece wasn't attempting to provide investigative insights, but to highlight the truth of Corbyn's positions at the time, as opposed to the rose-tinted and false impression he' attempting to portray now.

[SWv2]

George Galloway called Corbyn a liar on the radio last evening as I drove home.

So called Brexity type ****.

I soon got bored and put on a cd.

[TheCurly]

Come, come, let's not be naive here, c. The Troops Out Movement was committed to the withdrawal of British government and forces from Northern Ireland at a time when the IRA were conducting a military campaign to the same ends. How can support for the troops out movement therefore not equate to 'wanting the provos to win', since that would have been the de facto outcome had their demands been met?

The piece wasn't attempting to provide investigative insights, but to highlight the truth of Corbyn's positions at the time, as opposed to the rose-tinted and false impression he' attempting to portray now.

Those marches were certainly organised by and for the republican movement,no doubt.But there were many,many attendees that saw it as a single issue.Quite a few British ex-squaddies spoke at them that couldn't be called sympathisers.

[The Jorge]

I have never suggested I don't support violence by the west. There is no inherent contradiction in my stance, but there is in Corbyn's. Harping on me supporting violence is meaningless.

His calling people his 'friends' would be less sinister if he'd ever 'sat down' with more than one side in any of his pet conflicts. He didn't. He chose his 'friends'; carefully and ignored the points of view of others. I would call that lauding.

Yes, but that's because it suits your agenda to.

The logical inconsistency of your cheerleading for western violence why decrying the "turrist murder" stuff is still exactly the same.

[Sir C]

Because Monty likes getting a subject and going over it again and again until we are so bored we resort to telling the boring **** to shut up..... imo

It could be said that he engages in discussion and sparks interesting threads.

Have you considered adding something positive?

[Pokster]

It could be said that he engages in discussion and sparks interesting threads.

Have you considered adding something positive?

It could be said that a huge % of his articles go over the same thing again and again... which is the point i made

[TheCurly]

It could be said that a huge % of his articles go over the same thing again and again... which is the point i made

OK..no need to go on and on about it

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=TheCurly;4112667]OK..no need to go on and on about it[/QUOT

I did wonder who would be the first to say that.. you win the star prize of a free drink in Leeds

[Burney]

Yes, but that's because it suits your agenda to.

The logical inconsistency of your cheerleading for western violence why decrying the "turrist murder" stuff is still exactly the same.

It's only logically inconsistent if you come at it from the point of view that both sides are morally equivalent. I regard that point of view as both moronic and offensive, since I take the view that, on balance, the west is rather better than the alternatives.

[The Jorge]

It's only logically inconsistent if you come at it from the point of view that both sides are morally equivalent. I regard that point of view as both moronic and offensive, since I take the view that, on balance, the west is rather better than the alternatives.

:hehe: That's some balance you've taken it on there. Bravo.

[The Jorge]

[QUOTE=TheCurly;4112667]OK..no need to go on and on about it[/QUOT

I did wonder who would be the first to say that.. you win the star prize of a free drink in Leeds

£1.38 into Curly's pocket then. Not a bad day.

Only joking, where do you drink in Leeds, Poks? I'm a big fan of the Watermelon Martinis from The Alchemist but I'm not really welcome there after some mild unpleasantness.

Have you been to The Conservatory? Hands down my favourite bar in Leeds, they do a nice Cognac selection too.

[Burney]

:hehe: That's some balance you've taken it on there. Bravo.

What? You would deny that the cultural, economic, social and scientific advances brought about by post-enlightenment western culture are not superior to the available alternatives? You wouldn't concede that those are things worth defending?

[SWv2]

[QUOTE=Pokster;4112668]

I'm a big fan of the Watermelon Martinis from The Alchemist but I'm not really welcome there after some mild unpleasantness.



Did you kick off when the barman forgot to put an umbrella in your drink?

[Sir C]

What? You would deny that the cultural, economic, social and scientific advances brought about by post-enlightenment western culture are not superior to the available alternatives? You wouldn't concede that those are things worth defending?

:hehe: Much as I admire your persistance, I can't help feeling that you're flogging a dead horse here.

Anything's better than the peace, comfort and security in which these people sit and pontificate. Get with the programme, dude. You sound like a square, or worse, a grown-up!

[The Jorge]

What? You would deny that the cultural, economic, social and scientific advances brought about by post-enlightenment western culture are not superior to the available alternatives? You wouldn't concede that those are things worth defending?

Of course not but I'm looking at things "on balance" here. We've brought the world to the brink of destruction in a frightening number of ways, our prosperity comes on the back of a frankly rather heinous system on endentured servitude and far from being a shining light of righteous industry and endeavour we've had to conveniently sidestep most of those values in order to lie to ourselves about our own virtue.

So no, "on balance" I dont think global capitalism is as great as it's cracked up to be, sorry.

[Burney]

Those marches were certainly organised by and for the republican movement,no doubt.But there were many,many attendees that saw it as a single issue.Quite a few British ex-squaddies spoke at them that couldn't be called sympathisers.

The fact that there are always useful idiots ready to rally to a cause doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is in effect supporting the root cause - in this case the victory of the IRA.

[Burney]

Of course not but I'm looking at things "on balance" here. We've brought the world to the brink of destruction in a frightening number of ways, our prosperity comes on the back of a frankly rather heinous system on endentured servitude and far from being a shining light of righteous industry and endeavour we've had to conveniently sidestep most of those values in order to lie to ourselves about our own virtue.

So no, "on balance" I dont think global capitalism is as great as it's cracked up to be, sorry.

Right. So even though it has by any objective measure made the world's population wealthier, better educated and longer-lived, has defeated any number of diseases, allowed hitherto unimagined levels of global mobility and communication and successfully defeated a number of vicious totalitarian threats to its existence, you don't like it because 'capitalism...urgh!'?

****'s sake! :rolleyes:

[Ash]

Right. Only you've kind of just made my point for me. This is a man who has opposed all and any use of western military force against aggressive, murderous dictators who have broken international law and invaded sovereign territory - from the Falklands to the first Gulf War - but is miraculously able to justify the use of armed, lethal force by the IRA against civilians within a democratic system and against the democratic will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland as 'an act of last resort'?


Hang on a minute. Since when have you given a damn about international law and sovereignty? You certainly don't when your side contravenes them.

Oh, when it suits you. :hehe:

[The Jorge]

Right. So even though it has by any objective measure made the world's population wealthier, better educated and longer-lived, has defeated any number of diseases, allowed hitherto unimagined levels of global mobility and communication and successfully defeated a number of vicious totalitarian threats to its existence, you don't like it because 'capitalism...urgh!'?

****'s sake! :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ, read what I just wrote there. It wasnt just "because...capitalism". It's not an objectively great system, it's a subjectively great one. Just only really from the subjective point of view of the top X%.

[Burney]

Hang on a minute. Since when have you given a damn about international law and sovereignty? You certainly don't when your side contravenes them.

Oh, when it suits you. :hehe:

In which case, that would appear to be something I have in common with Jeremy Corbyn, then, no? :shrug:

The difference is that I'm a pragmatist, whereas he claims to have high ideals. Do you see the problem here?

Honestly, a, I set this beartrap for j, but he avoided it by studiously avoiding the question. You, on the other hand, lumbered straight into it. :hehe:

[The Jorge]

In which case, that would appear to be something I have in common with Jeremy Corbyn, then, no? :shrug:

The difference is that I'm a pragmatist, whereas he claims to have high ideals. Do you see the problem here?

Honestly, a, I set this beartrap for j, but he avoided it by studiously avoiding the question. You, on the other hand, lumbered straight into it. :hehe:

And it wouldve been a great honeytrap if only you could have deflected more fire from your own logical inconsistencies.

[Fast Eddie]

Am I the only (Celtic) Brit to know that it wasn't the IRA who instigated the conflict in Northern Ireland/ROI.

I mean to only read the timeline of the conflict would prove that. But then we have state terrorist Zionists and Brit imperialists rewriting the history to say otherwise :rolleyes:

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=Pokster;4112668]

£1.38 into Curly's pocket then. Not a bad day.

Only joking, where do you drink in Leeds, Poks? I'm a big fan of the Watermelon Martinis from The Alchemist but I'm not really welcome there after some mild unpleasantness.

Have you been to The Conservatory? Hands down my favourite bar in Leeds, they do a nice Cognac selection too.

Obviously with me not being much of a drinker my choices are not going to count for much... Headrow house... the 2 you mentioned, Brewdog and also North Bar

[Mo Britain less Europe]

IRA = murderous scum. Those who support them = murderous scum who deserve to be eradicated from the face of the earth with their entire families.

[The Jorge]

IRA = murderous scum. Those who support them = murderous scum who deserve to be eradicated from the face of the earth with their entire families.

****ing hell, mo. He was just telling me where he had a drink.

[Fast Eddie]

IRA = murderous scum. Those who support them = murderous scum who deserve to be eradicated from the face of the earth with their entire families.

Yes they were but so were the British Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland. I believe that though on ratio the IRA killed more combatants than they did civilians while the British Army killed more civilians than terrorists. Work that out, eh.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Yes they were but so were the British Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland. I believe that though on ratio the IRA killed more combatants than they did civilians while the British Army killed more civilians than terrorists. Work that out, eh.

Violence against murderers isn't murder. It's keeping the ****ing peace. Work that out, eh.

[Fast Eddie]

Violence against murderers isn't murder. It's keeping the ****ing peace. Work that out, eh.

Did you miss the part where i said civilians?

The British Army were responsible for more deaths of Catholic civilians than they were IRA terrorists/murderers. ****, my uncle was hit by a rubber bullet because he and his friends wouldn't obey a curfew in his own area like some sort of military junta occupation dictatorship.

Can you figure that out, eh.