Radio station pilloried for misrepresenting Corbyn on killing of IS leader

Bosses at right-wing radio station LBC may well be regretting their decision to misrepresent a comment by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on the death of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Here’s the headline – and the relevant part of the interview:

It is clear that Mr Corbyn did not say arresting al-Baghdadi was “the right thing to do” – he said he did not know the circumstances of what happened.

Speaking in terms of international law, he said if it were possible to arrest such people, then that would be the right thing – but that is not the same as what LBC suggested.

And the public were on the case.

Jerry Tresman pointed out: “He didn’t say that at all. Shows how the lazy are influenced by one-line false headlines, when the video of what is actually said is in front of them. He said “if possible they should be arrested” and was referring mainly to previous situations where they were executed.”

Here‘s Andy Mills: “Play it back then change your disingenuous headline….it may not appeal to some of your sheeple but at least you could call it journalism!”

Paul Cracknell: “‘If it would have been possible to arrest him, I don’t know the details of the circumstances at the time.’ Those were his words. You make it sound like he’s saying he should have been arrested after he was killed. Muppets.”

‘GenuinelyInterested’: “LBC are being a little bit economical with the truth. What Corbyn actually said was (and I paraphrase), if (double underlined) it were possible to arrest Baghdadi, then we should have done so, so that he could stand trial in the Hague just like Milosevic. What’s wrong about that?”

Even Matthew Collins: “I’m no Corbyn fan but he actually said (twice) ‘if it were possible to arrest him that would have been preferable’. He did not say ‘he shouldn’t have been killed’ or ‘he should have been arrested’.”

At the time of writing, LBC doesn’t appear to have changed its line. Instead, it appears to have doubled-down on it:

Perhaps there should be stronger regulation of the press, along the lines proposed by the Leveson Inquiry.

But will you vote Labour into office, to enact it?

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



  1. Random Bloke November 14, 2019 at 7:49 pm - Reply

    If you tell a lie enough times eventually it becomes truth

    • Mike Sivier November 15, 2019 at 2:33 pm - Reply

      More accurate to say eventually it is thought to be the truth.

  2. Gary November 14, 2019 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    The law is clear. During election campaigns it is entirely legal for politicians to lie whilst campaigning, news outlets can then report on these lies with a ‘clear conscience’ (see Alistair Carmichael’s case)

    Our newspapers often declare their bias towards a political party and then ‘report’ accordingly and we don’t give it a second thought. This same ideology seems to have infected our television news as well now. For example, Nick Robinson’s behaviour on Daily Politics and other reporting.

    I think it only fair that people know what they’re getting when they watch a TV show, listen to the radio or read a newspaper. If they wish to call it ‘news’ then it should be factual, balanced and unbiased. If they wish to have a show that pushes a certain agenda then it should be that it CANNOT be labelled ‘news’ Any papers acting this way should not be allowed to call themselves ‘news’ papers either. They should have their affiliations and biases clearly labelled too. They should be displayed with others of the same kind when displayed in news agents too. Maybe on the top shelf where children can’t see them lol!

    So, for example, instead of ‘The Daily Mail’ newspaper it would be ‘The Daily Mail Tory Opinion Sheet’ For television shows it should be similar. Reporting Scotland could be ‘Scottish Unionist Opinion’ and would be on after 11pm lest it be mistaken for a news programme. At 6.30pm there could be a REAL news programme called ‘The News’ that had actual unbiased news that was fact-checked by REAL journalists and anything that was untrue, lies or misrepresentations could actually be removed instead of the nonsense we currently see.

    I’m not saying we can’t have controversial opinion, but what I am saying is that it should be labelled as opinion and not news, especially when it’s demonstrably untrue and a two minute fact check would discover this…

  3. AM-FM November 15, 2019 at 7:58 pm - Reply

    JC’s comments were mentioned on JeremyVine CH5 Thu@10:55am, perhaps surprisingly, his comments seemed to have 100% support from the guests. :)

Leave A Comment