[lord_kobel]

Do any of them own papers, though? That's the problem...

[mikey mikey]

Well you could always write articles for them. If you one were a cunt.

[mattomac]

I would say two things are going on with this Brittain case the former is a simple one to try and discredit Watson, they have noted the Shadow Cabinet and some of the key people in that are Watson allies and if Corbyn was to fail he maybe come leader or at least have influence.

The second is far more dubious and worrying which is by constantly discrediting Watson and challenging him in relation to Brittain it makes it harder to make a judgement in future that Brittain and those who shared his circle were not involved in abusing children.

The former is sadly politics for these cunts, the latter worries me greatly.

[Abernathy]

Looks like Tom's getting something worthwhile under way. it's what he said he'd do. Tom is one of the good guys.

http://digital.labour.org.uk/2016/01/25 ... our-party/

[Malcolm Armsteen]

At last! Development!

[youngian]

He was talking about this when I was campaigning for him. One of the volunteers feared he'd get bogged with pages* of stuff from the likes of Keith Flett five times a week. But Keith has mercifully cut down on his contributions, Watson replied.

* can we still use expressions like 'pages of information' or 'reams of stuff' in a digital context?

[bluebellnutter]

Try "megabytes of fluff". It's not a thing and I've just invented it in my head, but I like it and might use it again.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I don't see the problem. Anything from Flett or other resolutionary socialists just get deleted, surely?