You see it's all tit for tat. What's good for the goose and all that. The only difference really is that one party is configuring its whole election campaign around it.
I'm pretty sure the voters will decide either way. I'm sure all jews wont vote labour, apart from the family on my street and my uncles new wife. Just as I'm convinced that many muslims wont vote for Boris or the tories.
It would be refreshing to hear of positive policies instead of just smear slogans. It would be refreshing to see this report on the Russians that Boris is sitting on. Anyone and everyone should be demanding to see that! It could well be the case that they helped influence labour support! Who knows until the government release it!
It does if you look at the circumstantial evidence against him. Have a read of this, particularly the stuff about Corbyn at the end relating to the English irony quote and the mural row. You have to look at the thing as a whole, and how many Jewish people are being treated in the Labour Party and why they are leaving. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552
Circumstantial evidence, would that stand up in any court in the land?!?!? What a load of ****e. If jews have a problem they wont vote for him simple as that. Just as muslims wont for Boris. Does that mean jc has a problem with jews or boris a problem with muslims?
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence at all! Ffs Goldy c'mon mate, you know that. I know it %100 as it was actually attempted in my court case years and years ago. It was thrown out at the point of reading!
Johnson will be judged by the electorate. But his chancellor of the exchequer is Muslim, and his home secretary is an Indian Ugandan Asian. And he has a sikh spokesperson
Of course circumstantial evidence stands up in court. Many people have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. You haven't read the article, have you Bob?
May be it wasn't sufficient in your case. Who knows? But circumstantial evidence is an accepted form of evidence. In a criminal trial, a jury will make a decision based on the amount and quality of it.
Circumstantial evidence does not prove the existence or non existence of a fact mate , therefore without concrete evidence is not worth the paper it's written on.
And do you not think JC will be judged by the electorate aswell as I stated earlier? You would think that Boris would choose his racist comment more carefully wouldnt you considering his cabinet
Here's one for a start! The police haven't even found the body, yet the husband is convicted of murder. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-50181729
What is the circumstantial evidence? And relating to JC and his non existent problem with Jews this proves what exactly?
I'm not defending Boris's racist comments in the past. He has to answer for that. Yes, Corbyn will be judged. I imagine the Tories will make a lot of it. And the case against him will take into account every piece of evidence, direct (like the murals or the irony quote) or circumstantial like the way he's allowed Labour Party members to drive out Jewish members with threats and hate speech. Don't ask me on this, ask the Jewish leaders, and the MP's that have been pushed out of the Labour Party.
Jezza would never utter a word against the Russians, as was the case over the Salisbury poisonings. with his anti-USA stance the special relationship would be straight up Putin's jacksie.So this is quite a pertinent question...
When you bring a claim for murder and there is no body, so no proof that anyone has died, the evidence of murder has to be circumstantial
Let's just be straight, I dont think JC has a problem with Jews. There is no evidence anywhere where he has directly quoted anything to prove otherwise. There is no evidence of verbal or physical attacks on jewish people by jeremy corbyn. There are though within his party that he leads. He has said he will comply with any investigation and root out the problem. Bloody jew hater
