Britain was a very different country 30 years ago. I'm afraid after years of being a soft touch for anyone wanting to come and take advantage of our golden paved streets attitudes are likely to have changed.

I think that politicians, journalists, presenters, LBC callers, DS forum members who thinks we need to extend bombing raids, already in Iraq, into Syria should lead by example and go and drop the bombs themselves.

You taking a refugee family in then Connor? How many spare bedrooms do you have?

From the main thread

Trouble i see is the party will still be stuffed with ex bankers, ex lawyers, ex students who've never worked a real job and the finantionaly comfortable middle class.
They will fight Corbyn's move to the left and harrass him like the backbenchers in the Tory seats.

R.I.P Labour.

Margaret Beckett telling Iain Dale that she regrets nominating Corbyn.

So what did you do it for, you silly moo?

I really wanted to envisage a time when I could go back to voting labour but this has put the bloody tin lid on it.

It's all Iain Dale's fault!

https://audioboom.com/boos/3248025-i...our-leadership

Well done Iain!

From the LBC chit chat Thread.

What are the "several things"? I hope you don't mean not signing the national anthem or not having his top button done up. They did the same with Miliband, they attacked him for not being able to eat a bacon sandwich and the way he looked, they also do the same (although not as bad )with Farage.

Didn't David Lammy (I think) say the same, proposed him but didn't vote for him? Talk about coming back to bite them.

Yes I do mean those very things. Are you suggesting that those actions have not incited critisism of JC over the past few days?

It's more than "criticism". It's personal attacks.

How has JC not having his top button undone has "incited" these personal attacks?

Connor I know your default reaction to my posts is to disagree wherever possible but please read them properly before you jump in feet first. I'm not going to keep recapping what I mean for your benefit when it's perfectly clear in my original post. However, one last time: It wasn't a critisism and I wasn't talking about or justifying personal attacks. You brought those words in after my post. I was talking about media comment about some of the things he has chosen to do this week.

After two years, and just over 5 months, this thread has reached 100 pages

You said "He's done several things in the last couple of days that have incited criticism" http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=8891

I was saying that I didn't think that the media comment is just criticism, it's personal attacks.

How has JC not having his top button done up "incited criticism" (or what I think are personal attacks)?

Critisism and personal attack are very different things as im sure you'll realise if you think about it a bit more.
I said critisism, YOU said personal attack. I never said personal attack was justified.

For the second time this week, please stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I'm not trying to. What you are calling Critisism, I think are personal attacks. I made it clear in my last post.

For the second time today, How has JC not having his top button done up "incited criticism" (or what I think are personal attacks)?

Saying that someone should conform to what is generally believed to be the norm e.g a dress code is not a personal attack. Discussing his choice of dress critically, and the reasons why it gives a negative impression of him is not a personal attack.


If you don't agree that there's a fundamental difference we'll have to agree to differ.

One person's criticism is another person's personal attacks. It depends where your sympathies lie. Corbyn has incited criticism and/or personal attacks by behaving like a sulky teenager being made to adapt to what he considers to be other people's standards. The criticism/personal attacks have come not just from his political opponents but members of his own party and media generally considered to be sympathetic to Labour. Attending a memorial service looking as though he got dressed in the dark is a good example.

I'll bet it was a few years since you were called that g-s ?

Quite. And that was completely within his own gift to do something about. think of the column inches that could be spent on something more useful if he simply wore a dark suit and properly tied tie. He knows what he is doing is going to incite a negative reaction but chooses to do it anyway. So whining about the press going on about it is a bit pointless.

Mr Scruffy gets paid an extra 60 Gs now .At the very least the man can splash out on a new suit and not walk round looking like some charity shop case .

I'm not a political animal, but why judge a book by it's cover? I don't care what a politician is earning if they replace it with honesty, rather than slick suits which are two a penny. Oh btw, I'm not a leftie supporter, I have my foot in both camps.

He most certainly CAN wear what he wants as long as he remembers:

1. Non conformity will result in discussion/criticism (look I spelt it rite this time )
2. Michael Foot.