Corbyn and the Spy claims

[Workingman]

No smoke without fire ?

If as he says it's nothing why doesn't he want it proved?

But he does want it proved; without proof it is smoke without fire.

So far there is no proof, just hearsay / rumours. How can any of us, you or me, defend ourselves against such except to deny them?

It is not just Corbyn, anyone put in a similar position cannot do right for doing wrong in the minds of some people. Whatever happened to 'innocent till proved guilty' in the modern world?

Ah, I forgot the echo chamber: They say that I am guilty, therefore I must be.

[Kaz]

^^^ This!

[Suff]

Oh dear, are you seriously comparing this nonsense over Corbyn with Kim Philby?

You know perfectly well I'm not Kaz because I have said, several times, that I believe Corbyn to actually be innocent of the accusations.

However because of Philby, Burgess and Maclean, it is no longer sufficient to just deny claims of this kind. They lied for so long and so comprehensively, they destroyed any concept of "trust" when it comes to those with security information and the security of our country.

[Suff]

But he does want it proved; without proof it is smoke without fire.

Actually, it appears, he does not. He seems to expect that everyone else will make the case for him and that he has to do nothing about it.

There is a parliamentary procedure for this and he should follow it. No matter how ridiculous. For the very reasons I mentioned to Kaz.

If he doesn't, then he IS guilty. Whether he actually committed the act or not. When it comes to the security of this country and when an accusation has been made; it is one of the very few times when you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

I think Corbyn will try and ride this out on the outrage of the press and his followers.

I think Corbyn does have something to hide. Not this, but something else. Something which the security services will never take to court, but will not make him any more popular with the people.

In time, others will feel the same.

Go for it Corby... You just carry on as you are. Because the real pain hasn't even begun yet. The Republican campaign, at the last presidential election, held many things about Clinton very close and dropped them like a bombshell as the 11th hour. Right when spin control was simply impossible.

If Corbyn thinks that this won't happen to him, he really is the idealistic idiot I think he is.

[Workingman]

I still do not get it.

There is not a shred of evidence that Corbyn was in a position to know any state secrets. At the time he was a very junior backbench MP. What secret security information was he privilege to that he could pass on? Zilch.

I still see this as muck-raking by the media and nothing else. It has fallen below: Care home promises 'more pole dancing' in the ratings; we are so interested in it.

[Kaz]

Corbyn's lawyers have now served a writ on the Tory MP who made the allegations.

[Suff]

WM, it's not about a shred of evidence. Accusations have been made. The process when these accusations have been made are clear and should be followed.

Corbyn is not following that process. He is denying them using his lawyers to attack and, generally, acting as if he's guilty of something.

How Corbyn should approach this is to use the Parliamentary procedure to clear his name. Once he has done that he can then go after everyone with his lawyers.

Lest we forget, at least one Tory MP successfully prosecuted a paper for false allegations then went to jail for Perjury.

This is not about whether he did it or not. This is about whether it looks like he did it. It is why the Parliamentary procedure was set up, so that MP's could clear their name properly and everyone would know they were clean. Anyone can deny an allegation and anyone can set the attack dogs of their lawyers onto people who make claims. It doesn't mean they are actually clean.

Corbyn is now going after one stupid MP who can't tell the difference between what the Sun did and what he did. The Sun ran a story saying that an Ex Eastern Bloc spy "said" Cobyn was a spy. The MP repeated the allegations as if they were true on a 1:1 basis. Throwing himself open to legal action.

Now ask yourself this. Why are Corbyn's lawyers not going after the Czech former spy? After all he lives in an EU country and that means that legal procedure is open to Corbyn to do that and he would get assistance to make the charge.

After all, if you are being slandered, there are legal recourse to that throughout the EU.....

But, no, we are supposed to believe that because Corbyn is going after anyone who repeats the allegations as if they are true, that this is the end of it. If that were true, the first place Corbyn's lawyers would have gone is to the ex spy himself.

Worth thinking about.

Victor is not the only one who will believe what he said and it doesn't matter how many legal cases Corbyn brings up. Until he opens up and becomes totally transparent on it, this will never be closed.

As I said. Corbyn can act the way he has acted ever since he became leader of the Labour party if he wants. He will reap the bitter experience of that come the next election.

Do you get it now WM? This is not about shreds of evidence. Someone has slandered Corbyn. A process exists which can totally clear Corbyn's name. Corbyn is not following that process and he is not going after the person who is slandering hm. He is going after anyone who repeats it as fact and not going after the person who has slandered him.

Even I, who can't stand the guy but am honest enough to say I don't believe he is guilty of what he is accused of; am now wondering what Corbyn does have to hide that he will not submit himself to the Parliamentary procedure to clear his name. And that is really, really, bad for him.

[Workingman]

The reason that I am not bothered about what Corbyn does is simple: If there is any basis to the accusations then MI5 / 6, Scotland Yard, the NCA and Parliamentary watchdog will be all over the case and any relevant action will be taken.

Whether Corbyn refers himself or not those investigations will have been done or are being done. If something does turn up Corbyn will be in more trouble than if he referred himself, but that is his choice.

Time for a cuppa.

[Suff]

Ah well, we shall see. I'm now quite interested to see how a court case against a MP will go when his public accuser remains unchallenged in the courts..

[Suff]

Lest we forget, Corbyn is of the hard left.

Not referring himself has left him open to articles like this from the Guardian.

We should never forget that the Blairite centre left supporters of Labour Do Not want Corbyn in power. They fear Corbyn in power because they believe he will undo all their work and leave Labour out in the wilderness for a decade or two.

They are right to fear. I kind of like this constant tearing away at Corbyn. He should have referred himself. The review would have ignored a lot of this stuff which is coming out in the press. That, in the end, will be far more damaging to Corbyn than if he had immediately referred himself.

For me, this is preferable. If the pain to Corbyn is far higher, from not referring himself, than it would have been if he had; then others will be deterred from doing the same.