I am certainly not a believer in this Zionist plot thing, BUT my great uncle was with 6th Airborne in Palestine shortly after WW2 and he had initially liberated concentration camps but after Palestine, he was a changed man.
He believed that the Zionists would do anything. In fact they even volunteered to fight for Germany, if he would give them Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

I do find it ironic when the Israelis mention "Terrorists" as I know about the Sergeants affair.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair

Worth a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war

BTW my grandmother was Jewish.....

To be fair to the original settlers of Israel, having watched the world stand by while your families were systematically murdered, and you somehow survived, how well disposed would you be to the sensitivities of others?

I've not heard that one, but there was allegedly a similar view taken when it looked like Kinnock might be elected.

If you haven't seen this then you need to - Holohoax Completely Exposed by David Cole. It might be the ramblings of a nut job (as we are told) or it might all be totally true, either way it casts enough doubt over the nature and intention of the camps to prompt any thinking person to at least question the full story.

My take on it is this. If you are willing to accept that a group of people (Nazis) once slaughtered millions of people, then why is it so implausible that another group (Zionists) could do the same? If one group is capable of having committed these crimes, then both are. If you are willing to accept that the Nazis committed these crimes, then is it not also possible that the Zionists fabricated the entire story for their own purposes. In the end it should come down to objective review and evidence, not 'belief' or fear of being ostracized, and there's plenty of strong evidence out there that suggests that the true story may have been 'fudged' a fair amount. You just won't find it on the TV or being taught in schools.

Personally, I think that the years immediately before, during and just after WW2 were much darker than anyone really appreciates now, and that governments that seek to silence historians and people with a genuine interest in what happened is unacceptable and should be treated with suspicion.

Now who am I going to believe?

An after the event 'explanation' by a rambling apologist, or the evidence of eye witnesses, the documentation produced by the German military, the construction and train companies, the courts after the event - and a wife who is the daughter of a kindertransport girl, who was one of only three survivors of her family of thirty; the remainder of whom were taken to Dachau or Auschwitz and are now ash?

There's an old joke concerning two Jewish chaps in Berlin sitting in a cafe before the war reading Volkischer Beobachter (the Nazi official newspaper). One asks the other why he's reading such rubbish. Well, says the other, I feel so much better - according to this I own money, factories, always eat in the best restaurants, and secretly rule the world.

Which is not to say that the Israeli state is any paragon of virtue; but the state is not the people thereof, nor does it necessarily represent the views of people of the same professed religion worldwide (or even within the state). There is no doubt, for example, that the Stern Gang were terrorists pure and simple; killing and torturing with the specific aim of getting the British out of Palestine. There is no doubt that the early leaders of the Israeli state were members of or closely associated with the Stern gang. There is no doubt that to this day Israel refuses to obey UN injunctions; engages in cross-border conflict; follows apartheid policies... but there is a difference between being Jewish and being Israeli and there is a difference between the religion and the culture.

While it is quite possible that the Israelis *might* make up such a story, they had no need. Occam's razor shaves very fine...

Back on topic with Corbyn; the relentless attacks by the Tories continue - I'm amazed that someone so apparently unelectable is causing such a frenzy of accusation.
The latest is Corbyn's decision to decline an invitation to attend (and become a member of) the Privy Council. Although it is usual for the Leader of the Opposition to join, it took David Cameron 3 months to do so. The Conservative spin is that it is because Corbyn won't swear allegiance to the Queen. Really? This is politics and I'm entirely certain that there will be a workaround, so it looks like yet another smear.

Incidentally, leaving aside the "patriotic" claptrap about our wonderful monarch, what is the constitutional position if an elected politician does not swear allegiance? Presumably if someone can be elected to parliament, they must be allowed to form a government. It would be a refreshing change if that were the case.

There was a piece in the Torygraph that I overlooked someone reading which said the JC has the Tories worried.

I can't understand why they are attacking him so hard because if it works then a more credible leader might replace him in a year or two.

I am constantly surprised by the number of people (outside of the tory press and certain internet forums) that say they approve of him and will vote for him.

Plus on the monarchy issue he was doomed either way, he either agreed to be on the privy council and would have been made out to be hypocrite or done as he done and made out to be unpatriotic.

I have some affection for the current queen but we could remove the entire monarchy in this country without it making much of a difference to most peoples lives. No need for a president either.

I am pretty ambivalent about the monarchy; I don't think most people (including many "monarchists", if they thought about it) agree in principle with the idea that your birth gives you the right to rule over your fellow men. However as a quaint, picturesque - if anachronistic - institution that brings in a lot of cash from Johnny Foreigner, I don't really mind.
If we are seriously saying that our elected politicians MUST be somehow subjected to the Monarch, then it all makes a bit of a mockery of the whole Black Rod pantomime when opening Parliament.
Anyway, I suspect that HM might prefer someone like Corbyn to the Usual Suspects.

As you say, sugerbear, either the Tories think Corbyn is an unelectable liability, consigning the Labour Party to ineffectual and divided opposition for the foreseeable future (surely a "Good Thing" if you're a Conservative?) or they are strangely scared of him.

If any of you care, I re-wrote my quick Facebook response into a full blog post and did some proper analysis of voting figures (also my blog is great and contains many posts that I think are funny)...[/shameless self-promotion]

https://excelpope.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/ive-got-corbyns-number/

It's because he isn't in the Zionists pockets and they don't like that. Seriously guys...

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice".

If the mass media goes after anyone, you need to follow them off the official mainstream media and find out what they were saying. The fact that you don't understand why they're going after him despite reading all of the articles in media has got to tell you something... It doesn't add up.

Look up Cognitive Dissonance, understand what you are about to feel, and then head off the beaten track look up some websites that are reqarded as 'evil'. Look up Zionism and a few odd things that have occured recently...

The shooting in Tunisia by an evil ISIS gunman strangely ties up with the Mariana (heading to Palestine to give aid) being seized by Israeli forces. They turn everyone away when it's time to do some dirty work.

Now we have Russian missiles hitting Iran... Today WE are sending out Trident submarines to drill nuclear tests in case Russia continues to destroy the West's created and funded terrorist organisations. It's all b#ll#cks. Israel wants the middle east and they control Western governments. It's starting to slip though.

I am aware that there are nut jobs wearing tin foil hats because the green men are listeining to them, but a big part of the media's policy is to associate legitimate arguments and movements with these Conspiracy Theorists.

Make your own mind up based on unbiased evidence.

Oh, and look up the Samson Option. Just in case Western government didn't do as they say, they have this handy little fall back.

Well absolutely, if you can't trust the mainstream media then your only sensible choice is to go and get the ill-informed opinion of every conspiracy theorists, anti-Semite and holocaust denier who can cobble together a web-site or blog post.

That isn't forming an un-biased opinion, it's accepting a heavily biased opinion without acknowledging its bias.

Andrew your numbers are forgetting the percentage of nearly-atrophied tories that will be dead by the next election.

But on the downside, constituency boundaries will be redrawn before 2020 making it harder for Labour to make inroads.

...and also @Trappy, although it does sound very tin-foil friendly I do think that part of the confrontation Corbyn is experiencing is down to some global corporate playbook, that may very well contain some element of zionist (not jewish, not isreali) influence. Even the bleedin' Guardian is out to get him.

Did you listen to the More or Less programme on R4 a few weeks back? about voting and Labour. basically the people he needs to vote for him are not in the right places to vote for him. i.e the majority of non-voters are in safe labor seats so amount of increasing turnout will make much difference to Tory voters voting blue and Labour voters voting red.

I think there is a crash coming within the next four year, BTL changes + austerity and no real growth in the economy.

I just think Corbyn is seen as a wildcard by alot of people and as such he is hard to be in oppostion against as he is not following the usual path. Hence the attempt to discredit him now, before he hits on something that is a) popular, b) deliverable and c) not what his opponents (on either side) want to do, so they can write it off as another crackpot idea before it gains momentum.

But it was also that the adding non voters only changes the difference by 1. If they target tory/green/lib/etc voters the change in voting is by 2 which is what you really need to do to win seats.

It is going to get harder for Cameron to keep punching a guy that refuses to punch back.

And when that IMF-predicted crash happens, a lot of people are going to be asking just why was all that cheap QE money shovelled into the banks, if they were just going to splash it up the wall in some dumb BRIC gamble.

There needs to be some root and branch reform to the UK democratic process because it is no longer fit for purpose. Quite clearly during the last election the electorate sent a signal that they were looking for something different, yet the SYSTEM delivered a predictable result.

Clearly any party wishing to claim a majority should actually have a majority of the total VOTE not just the outdated and unfit for purpose SEATS! It seems quite simple that if you wish to hold a majority government you should at least poll over 50% of the total electorate, either by yourself or with a coalition. Our current government should really be another Tory coalition, probably with UKIP.

Further to this. Any system that can allow manipulation of seat boundaries by any party in government, in an effort to better secure a future victory, should make it clear to everyone that the system not real democracy and is a sham. Safe seats also make the system look like a joke and causes many not to even bother voting.

It should be a clear and open vote and everyone should be made to vote.

TOTAL Electorate: 46,420,413
Voted for the current Government: 11,334,576
Our government were elected with just under 37% of the total vote, but less than 25% of the total electorate.
In the UK we rarely have a government representing the people. We have a system that suits politicians not the electorate.

I find huge irony that a Government should demand ballots for industrial action in the workplace must conform to a far more strict set of rules than those that give us that Government!

One positive result of Corbyn's election is that the media have stopped focussing on the SNP as "the Opposition".

Which is ironic, as the media should be focusing on the truly terrible job that the SNP are doing of running Scotland.

Not that it deters their supporters, who simply brush it off as a right-wing media smear.

Something like the Michelle Thompson case should be front-page news - imagine if the Conservative or Labour business spokesperson was involved in what appears to be massive and sustained mortgage fraud. The SNP's total failure of Scottish school-children should also be headlines, not buried away deep on the BBC News site.

@Bob - you know my views - do away with the party system completely. Vote for individuals, with a requirement that they *must* maintain their stated policies. If they want to affiliate to a party once they have a seat, that's fine, but they still have to maintain their stated policies.

And they *must* get 50% of the available votes. If not enough people in any ward vote for a candidate, nobody is returned; try again in a few months...

SPOT ON !!!!

Surely the real irony is the fact that it is a CONSERVATIVE government are the ones who are inviting UK infrastructure investment from the communist Chinese state... not Jeremy "Communist" Corbyn?

Money is money, we've got previous for allowing "dirty" money to be invested in UK. Corbyn isn't in a position to invite them in, but I would guess he's a Russian brand commie, given his age.