Corbyn criticised by his own mps about Russia

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

was it ? that is what u recalled ?

I do not need to recall exactly. I can simply do a search.
And demonstrate that one of the longer established members sets the tone for abuse, especially making allegations about others' family.

 

[transam]

tut tut way r bee . long established member Hmmm yes u are your abuse is legendary in here your attempts to intimidate as well

Blightymam sussed u out Hmmmmm u were not happy were you Hmmmm

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

tut tut way r bee . long established member Hmmm yes u are your abuse is legendary in here your attempts to intimidate as well

Blightymam sussed u out Hmmmmm u were not happy were you Hmmmm

Mightyblob and I had our differences, but give her some respect, she never resorted to abuse of my family. She managed to limit her abuse against me.
Can we say the same about you? No, we cannot!

 

[motorbiking]

I must congratulate you on your research. Well done.
However, form your link:
"the right of any State Party to request a challenge inspection"
I read that as the right of the Russians to a challenge inspection of the UK's evidence.

It goes on to say:
"States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves,"

Did any of that occur?

Nuff said?

No - you haven't understood. They are/were being asked to account for the attack, not provide information within the scope of the agreement. It does not apply.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

No - you haven't understood. They are/were being asked to account for the attack, not provide information within the scope of the agreement. It does not apply.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:
You present a well researched article (a reference would have been appreciated so we can view the entire article) to support your argument.
But when your research is shown to support my argument more than your own, you now claim that the agreement/article does not apply, and the UK were asking Russia to account for the crime, outside of that agreement.
If that is correct, were the Russians not entitled to respond with a reference to the agreement so as to ask the UK for more time (and a sample) to allow them to respond properly, in line with the official procedures?
Thus, the sentence, "States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves," is applicable.

However, the UK gave a 24 hours time limit, refused to provide a sample, and then took unilateral action. Hardly in the spirit of the agreement.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

u have quoted it out of context ?

Contextualising the comments.

what does that word mean

I contextualised the comments to show that banjodeano did not say what you claimed he had said, therefore he did not quote anything out of context.
Quite the reverse, you misappropriated a comment of his to claim it was out of context. In reality you had misunderstood his comment, and misinterpreted it.
Get it now?

 

[Notch7]

Perhaps it says more about their capability than it does mine

No, it speaks volumes about you.

 

[Notch7]

Corbyn is only trying to have it both ways by trying to keep the appease the stabbers in his party, he is playing a delicate ballancing game with his own party....for the time being

No he isnt. Corbyn is in a very small minority of people that dont support the condemning of Russia.

Labour is a deeply divided party. MPs gave him a vote of no confidence. Corbyn is being protected by Momentum activists that are bullying the moderates or the non Corbynistas.

 

[banjodeano]

No he isnt. Corbyn is in a very small minority of people that dont support the condemning of Russia.

Labour is a deeply divided party. MPs gave him a vote of no confidence. Corbyn is being protected by Momentum activists that are bullying the moderates or the non Corbynistas.

that is what the media want you to believe, since Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party, the membership has doubled, its gone from about 200.000 to well over 500.000+
How many momentum are there? not that many, you do the maths

 

[banjodeano]

I dont think foreign countries or individuals can donate money

of course they can and do...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-break-theresa-mays-vow-to-ban-russian-donors-glp2bl7cm
Russian oligarchs and their associates have registered donations of more than £820,000 to the Conservative Party since Theresa May became prime minister, The Sunday Times can reveal.

May promised to distance her party from Russian donors when she took office, with allies briefing that she would “sup with a long spoon” and the prime minister insisting there would not be a “business as usual” relationship with Moscow. However, the party has declared donations worth £826,100 from Russian-linked supporters since July 2016.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

No, it speaks volumes about you.

doggit, mightyblob, a.j something or other, hawkeye, little elf, a**e end , gasbag

doggit left after being exposed as a fraud,
mightyblob left because she liked to be abusive but could accept any abuse in return,
Aj something or other has never made a sensible contribution.
hawkeye with the scabby nose, and preaches illegal practices, has difficulty with social interactions but does not know why,
a**e end the pathological liar, who claims to be disabled,
gasbag the racist that is desperately trying to prove that he is not,
little elfi refuses to engage in discussion for his own reasons, but fair play to him, he does not seem to suffer the inadequacies or afflictions of the others, although he does like his pedantics,

Yes, definitely a badge of honour for them to pretend to be ignoring me.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I dont think foreign countries or individuals can donate money

of course they can and do...

Strictly speaking, notch is correct, the restrictions are something like only UK citizens or business can donate.
But as banjodeano eloquently shows, the restriction are easily circumvented.

 

[motorbiking]

Let me see if I understand you correctly:
You present a well researched article (a reference would have been appreciated so we can view the entire article) to support your argument.
But when your research is shown to support my argument more than your own, you now claim that the agreement/article does not apply, and the UK were asking Russia to account for the crime, outside of that agreement.
If that is correct, were the Russians not entitled to respond with a reference to the agreement so as to ask the UK for more time (and a sample) to allow them to respond properly, in line with the official procedures?.

I posted it including a link to the entire agreement btw specifically to address the misunderstanding of the 10 day limit.

Yes - The UK gave Russia 24hrs to account for the attack not 24hrs to explain the existence. Only the latter is covered by the convention. Article IX sec 2 does not control the process relating to hostile use, it is entirely focused on the program of distruction.

To use a different example. it’s like some car thief trying use the protection from harassment act to stop a copper dragging him out of the car.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I posted it including a link to the entire agreement btw

So you did. My apologies.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Yes - The UK gave Russia 24hrs to account for the attack not 24hrs to explain the existence. Only the latter is covered by the convention. Article IX sec 2 does not control the process relating to hostile use, it is entirely focused on the program of distruction.

Does the title of the agreement not cover the "use" of such weapons?