-
@Rembrandt We certainly have different views on what constitutes 'killing it'.
Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe the press treatment of this fella is any different to that dished out to either of the major parties leaders or members. He just makes it substantially easier for the journalists.
He's certainly riding the wave of mistrust in Politicians at the moment - whether or not this leads to something more substantial, only time will will tell. I'm happy to nail my colours to the mast though and categorically state that I seriously hope not.
-
@MajorRage said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt We certainly have different views on what constitutes 'killing it'.
Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe the press treatment of this fella is any different to that dished out to either of the major parties leaders or members. He just makes it substantially easier for the journalists.
He's certainly riding the wave of mistrust in Politicians at the moment - whether or not this leads to something more substantial, only time will will tell. I'm happy to nail my colours to the mast though and categorically state that I seriously hope not.
Really?No different treatment to other MPs? Got some examples? Because I have seen Remrandts examples.
It doesnt surprise me you dont like him, afterall the media dont -
@MajorRage Ha well 'being killed' seems a bit more accurate in the last couple days since the press rounded on him and his team.
I already had a pretty dim view of the press but having seen some of the lies said about him, often totally contradictory to what he actually said, I'm still bloody shocked at the levels they have sunk to. I genuinely don't understand how people in media, with the responsibility they should have, can knowingly lie about someone's views. It's bringing out the real crazies on to the streets now with threats of violence and death threats becoming common place.
I hope he gets in but I do doubt it on this go-round. However looking at his youtube stats his daily subscriber numbers have almost tripled since he started campaigning. It only takes a couple of his videos to have people challenge their own world view and realise mainstream media is completely false. Much like thousands of others Dave Rubin also credits Sargon for helping him change his views and now he himself runs his own channel with a million subscribers.
Ripples in a pond, this is the new counter-culture and change is definitely coming.
-
@Rembrandt I'm very wary of number of social media platforms / youtube etc numbers being representative of support. I do wonder what percentage of people who follow people on these things are actually doing it for support. Using me as an example, I probably follow 15-20 political /social commentators on social media, of which only 3-4 I would I regularly agree with and would potentially vote for in that situation.
To give some counterbalance to your summary above though, the screenshots you have are from the Sun and the Daily Mail - both sensational headline driven tabloid publications, so it's not surprising to see them jump on this. Ironically enough though, I'd actually say a lot of UKIP supporters are avid readers of both!
Agree this is the new counter culture, but I wouldn't be so sure that change is definitely coming. Only time will tell whose right there though.
-
@MajorRage yes its not a completely representative figure but the trend gives an idea. Supporters are also not necessarily from the UK or even voting age but the fact that the message is being at least heard is important. They guy although a bit of a provocateur is extremely well read and puts together very compelling arguments in an entertaining way, if not for guys like him I think we would see a lot more kids being pushed to the alt-right because at least on the internet the left prefer to scream incoherently at people rather than engage using reason.
DM and Sun are the most recent but The Independent and Sky News (despite even their own interview countering their headlines...) have chimed in. The Guardian seem to be watching their words a little which is surprising a lot more of 'allegedly' or 'accused of' rather than the 'he's a racist, paedophile advocate who murders puppies!' rhetoric.
I see Sargon/Peterson/Shapiro etc as being like how 90's hard rock and metal bands were when I was growing up. RATM, Sepultura, Tool, Manson etc. Provocative, pro free speech, anti authoritarian and roundly smeared in the press and the political establishment, protested against by extremists, censored and even banned.
-
@Rembrandt The independent article is just a fact job isn't it? Benjamin stands by his comments, and they have simply published them. They state it's old footage in the article too. And the headline is simply that he defends his use of the word.
In a sea of shit media, I thought this would be viewed as ok!
-
@MajorRage Yeah that's arguable. They still purposely left out his argument.
Sky was worse, they interviewed him and cut out and reported on specific sentences as though they were his entire position.
DM & Sun far far worse. What many journo might not realise is that Sargon has an army or international volunteers and they are working behind the scenes for him. The Liberalists have a research team who worked hard trying to figure where outlets got these apparent quotes. They've cracked it. Its actually a combination of 4 separate statements all taken out of context , even to the point of where he was arguing the opposite, and then stitched them together as one quote. I don't know what the Libel laws are exactly in the UK but surely he should be able to take them to the cleaners over this, will be a handy political donation for the next election.
Despite all of this he is actually in terrific spirits, he doesn't expect to get in but he is making a splash and the media is naturally over-playing their hand terribly (I mean where can they go after Nazi paedophile accusations?) which will ultimately speed up their demise.
-
@Rembrandt Without supporting the media, l’m not getting why you are upset about this. The UK press have been openly partisan since forever. Thatcher could do no wrong where the Telegraph and the Sun were concerned, but was the end of civilisation if you read the Guardian or Mirror. Robert Maxwell was rabidly pro-Labour and made sure his editors toed the line, and Murdoch was the mirror image on the right. Almost every newspaper reader in the UK, for as long as I’ve been there and that goes back to when the Independent launched, chooses the paper that reinforces their biases, they don’t expect or maybe even want balance. So the papers don’t pretend to have any.
One of the flaws I see in your assessment of Sargon’s popularity is that there is absolutely no evidence that even a sizeable fraction of his supporters on YouTube and the people working behind the scenes will be eligible SW England voters. It doesn’t matter that you like him any more than it matters that my neighbour doesn’t like Donald Trump. Neither of you get to vote. An internet fan base is nice and may even generate an income but It’s not the same as votes or even a popular support base at home.
BTW libel laws in the UK are such that it’s one of the easiest jurisdictions to get a judgement. Far easier that the US. If Sargon wants to sue then all power to him but it will be expensive and having made himself a public figure he probably won’t win.
-
@JC I'm curious, in the past have other politicians been slandered to the equivalent of 'Nazi paedophiles' despite their publicly expressed views being the total opposite? DM and Sun literally made stories up as did Sky News when you compare the journalist's hit piece to the full recorded interview. Maybe journalism has always been this dire but it's only now with alt-media that we are becoming aware and can expose it.
Having met the guy and knowing some of his team I certainly do feel more for his cause than I have for other politicians, I also strongly believe in his message and see it as an answer to some of the madness we are seeing today. I don't think I've said he is going to get in, although the possibility is there going by past results, the popularity I'm referring to is the counterculture against political correctness in Western society, that is gaining momentum.
Good to know about the libel laws. He will easily get funds via crowd funding, he's done it before when he was sued by a US youtuber. Just under a million subscribers with a significant percentage believing in his cause. Batten has backed him totally and as his job is Youtuber he isn't really beholden to someone else's influence which is a terrific place to be in politics allowing you to stick to your principles.
-
@Rembrandt Well I reckon you are asking some pretty big questions there.
Have any politicians been attacked in that specific way? I don’t know. But The Daily Mail have called Corbyn a traitor and a collaborator, which whatever you think of his politics is a pretty damning - maybe the most damning thing you can say about a potential leader of the country. That kind of language isn’t rare. The Sun called journalist Peter Snow a traitor for his coverage of the Falklands War. Most of the right-wing press savaged some judges because they ruled for parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit dispute. i.e. for doing their jobs.
The papers are pretty extreme. And their stance is normally that if you put yourself out there, for example by running for office, you are fair game. I’m just surprised that a lot of people have only noticed how vicious they are when the left-leaning papers started ramping up their attacks. Are they (and you I guess) really oblivious of the utter barbarity (often hilarious, TBH) of the Tory rags?
I honestly don’t think that alt-media has added anything, the biases of the UK press have always been very clear to anybody who wanted to look. But let’s face it, if you’re a right-of-centre voter do you actively look for bias in right wing papers? Isn’t it more the case that you are more likely to dismiss it as mischief-making rather than slander? Because I‘m sure the leftists have always seen it as slander rather than mischief-making. It’s no surprise that we all view reporting through our own lenses.
What I find really interesting is the belief that Sargon should sue for defamation. There are two aspects to that, first that he may have been libelled, which may certainly be true. But it would be hard to prove, to my knowledge there is no requirement for any media to provide context for any quote, that may be the decent and reasonable thing but it’s not the law. The second part is that to secure damages he would have to have suffered damage. The fact that he is becoming more popular, and gaining a higher income, is actually detrimental to his case. He can’t claim that his reputation has been ruined so he’s therefore entitled to damages to restore his fortunes to where they would otherwise have been when his income is increasing in part because of the attacks on him.
-
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt Well I reckon you are asking some pretty big questions there.
Have any politicians been attacked in that specific way? I don’t know. But The Daily Mail have called Corbyn a traitor and a collaborator, which whatever you think of his politics is a pretty damning - maybe the most damning thing you can say about a potential leader of the country. That kind of language isn’t rare. The Sun called journalist Peter Snow a traitor for his coverage of the Falklands War. Most of the right-wing press savaged some judges because they ruled for parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit dispute. i.e. for doing their jobs.
The papers are pretty extreme. And their stance is normally that if you put yourself out there, for example by running for office, you are fair game. I’m just surprised that a lot of people have only noticed how vicious they are when the left-leaning papers started ramping up their attacks. Are they (and you I guess) really oblivious of the utter barbarity (often hilarious, TBH) of the Tory rags?
I honestly don’t think that alt-media has added anything, the biases of the UK press have always been very clear to anybody who wanted to look. But let’s face it, if you’re a right-of-centre voter do you actively look for bias in right wing papers? Isn’t it more the case that you are more likely to dismiss it as mischief-making rather than slander? Because I‘m sure the leftists have always seen it as slander rather than mischief-making. It’s no surprise that we all view reporting through our own lenses.
What I find really interesting is the belief that Sargon should sue for defamation. There are two aspects to that, first that he may have been libelled, which may certainly be true. But it would be hard to prove, to my knowledge there is no requirement for any media to provide context for any quote, that may be the decent and reasonable thing but it’s not the law. The second part is that to secure damages he would have to have suffered damage. The fact that he is becoming more popular, and gaining a higher income, is actually detrimental to his case. He can’t claim that his reputation has been ruined so he’s therefore entitled to damages to restore his fortunes to where they would otherwise have been when his income is increasing in part because of the attacks on him.
Has any paper ever claimed that Corbyn said it was "ok to rape young boys"? I'd say that goes far beyond calling someone a traitor or collaborator. I get that the standard of proof under defamation law has to been extremely strict, but if there is no legal recourse for being slandered in that fashion, then there's hardly any point of having these laws on the books. The system is also clearly broken if a Scottish comedian can be convicted for making a video of a dog doing the Hitler salute, but a major newspaper can get away with deliberately and erroneously misquoting someone to make them look like a paedophile apologist.
The behaviour and biases of the British press remind me of (IMHO) the zenith of British comedy - Bottom.
Eddie : Bloody Nora! Neil Kinnock's grandparents were homosexual Martians! He's kept quiet about that, hasn't he?
Richie : Mhmmmm
Eddie : Lucky I read that, I was going to vote Labour
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in British Politics:
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt Well I reckon you are asking some pretty big questions there.
Have any politicians been attacked in that specific way? I don’t know. But The Daily Mail have called Corbyn a traitor and a collaborator, which whatever you think of his politics is a pretty damning - maybe the most damning thing you can say about a potential leader of the country. That kind of language isn’t rare. The Sun called journalist Peter Snow a traitor for his coverage of the Falklands War. Most of the right-wing press savaged some judges because they ruled for parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit dispute. i.e. for doing their jobs.
The papers are pretty extreme. And their stance is normally that if you put yourself out there, for example by running for office, you are fair game. I’m just surprised that a lot of people have only noticed how vicious they are when the left-leaning papers started ramping up their attacks. Are they (and you I guess) really oblivious of the utter barbarity (often hilarious, TBH) of the Tory rags?
I honestly don’t think that alt-media has added anything, the biases of the UK press have always been very clear to anybody who wanted to look. But let’s face it, if you’re a right-of-centre voter do you actively look for bias in right wing papers? Isn’t it more the case that you are more likely to dismiss it as mischief-making rather than slander? Because I‘m sure the leftists have always seen it as slander rather than mischief-making. It’s no surprise that we all view reporting through our own lenses.
What I find really interesting is the belief that Sargon should sue for defamation. There are two aspects to that, first that he may have been libelled, which may certainly be true. But it would be hard to prove, to my knowledge there is no requirement for any media to provide context for any quote, that may be the decent and reasonable thing but it’s not the law. The second part is that to secure damages he would have to have suffered damage. The fact that he is becoming more popular, and gaining a higher income, is actually detrimental to his case. He can’t claim that his reputation has been ruined so he’s therefore entitled to damages to restore his fortunes to where they would otherwise have been when his income is increasing in part because of the attacks on him.
Has any paper ever claimed that Corbyn said it was "ok to rape young boys"? I'd say that goes far beyond calling someone a traitor or collaborator. I get that the standard of proof under defamation law has to been extremely strict, but if there is no legal recourse for being slandered in that fashion, then there's hardly any point of having these laws on the books. The system is also clearly broken if a Scottish comedian can be convicted for making a video of a dog doing the Hitler salute, but a major newspaper can get away with deliberately and erroneously misquoting someone to make them look like a paedophile apologist.
The behaviour and biases of the British press remind me of (IMHO) the zenith of British comedy - Bottom.
Eddie : Bloody Nora! Neil Kinnock's grandparents were homosexual Martians! He's kept quiet about that, hasn't he?
Richie : Mhmmmm
Eddie : Lucky I read that, I was going to vote Labour
I’m not saying there is no recourse, I’m saying it may be a phyrric victory because he would have to prove not just that it happened but that it was damaging. Elton John once took the Sun for a bundle of cash for printing that he might be gay (I know, who knew?!) because he argued that a lot of his fans would be turned off buying his records. I imagine printing that now would be a career booster so you’d be hard pressed to sue successfully even if it was incorrect.
I guess the problem with being contrarian (and by the way I agree with much of what he says) is that you give plenty of ammunition to the unscrupulous and the shitstirrers.
-
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in British Politics:
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt Well I reckon you are asking some pretty big questions there.
Have any politicians been attacked in that specific way? I don’t know. But The Daily Mail have called Corbyn a traitor and a collaborator, which whatever you think of his politics is a pretty damning - maybe the most damning thing you can say about a potential leader of the country. That kind of language isn’t rare. The Sun called journalist Peter Snow a traitor for his coverage of the Falklands War. Most of the right-wing press savaged some judges because they ruled for parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit dispute. i.e. for doing their jobs.
The papers are pretty extreme. And their stance is normally that if you put yourself out there, for example by running for office, you are fair game. I’m just surprised that a lot of people have only noticed how vicious they are when the left-leaning papers started ramping up their attacks. Are they (and you I guess) really oblivious of the utter barbarity (often hilarious, TBH) of the Tory rags?
I honestly don’t think that alt-media has added anything, the biases of the UK press have always been very clear to anybody who wanted to look. But let’s face it, if you’re a right-of-centre voter do you actively look for bias in right wing papers? Isn’t it more the case that you are more likely to dismiss it as mischief-making rather than slander? Because I‘m sure the leftists have always seen it as slander rather than mischief-making. It’s no surprise that we all view reporting through our own lenses.
What I find really interesting is the belief that Sargon should sue for defamation. There are two aspects to that, first that he may have been libelled, which may certainly be true. But it would be hard to prove, to my knowledge there is no requirement for any media to provide context for any quote, that may be the decent and reasonable thing but it’s not the law. The second part is that to secure damages he would have to have suffered damage. The fact that he is becoming more popular, and gaining a higher income, is actually detrimental to his case. He can’t claim that his reputation has been ruined so he’s therefore entitled to damages to restore his fortunes to where they would otherwise have been when his income is increasing in part because of the attacks on him.
Has any paper ever claimed that Corbyn said it was "ok to rape young boys"? I'd say that goes far beyond calling someone a traitor or collaborator. I get that the standard of proof under defamation law has to been extremely strict, but if there is no legal recourse for being slandered in that fashion, then there's hardly any point of having these laws on the books. The system is also clearly broken if a Scottish comedian can be convicted for making a video of a dog doing the Hitler salute, but a major newspaper can get away with deliberately and erroneously misquoting someone to make them look like a paedophile apologist.
The behaviour and biases of the British press remind me of (IMHO) the zenith of British comedy - Bottom.
Eddie : Bloody Nora! Neil Kinnock's grandparents were homosexual Martians! He's kept quiet about that, hasn't he?
Richie : Mhmmmm
Eddie : Lucky I read that, I was going to vote Labour
I’m not saying there is no recourse, I’m saying it may be a phyrric victory because he would have to prove not just that it happened but that it was damaging. Elton John once took the Sun for a bundle of cash for printing that he might be gay (I know, who knew?!) because he argued that a lot of his fans would be turned off buying his records. I imagine printing that now would be a career booster so you’d be hard pressed to sue successfully even if it was incorrect.
I guess the problem with being contrarian (and by the way I agree with much of what he says) is that you give plenty of ammunition to the unscrupulous and the shitstirrers.
Didn't that kill Jason Donovan's career? But maybe he had a heap more gay fans.
Is Sargon really that contrarian? Yes in relation to the PC crowd but I think most sensible people will agree with much of what he says. That rape joke was obviously in very bad taste, but if you're offended by that then every episode of the Family Guy or South Park would make you faint.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in British Politics:
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in British Politics:
@JC said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt Well I reckon you are asking some pretty big questions there.
Have any politicians been attacked in that specific way? I don’t know. But The Daily Mail have called Corbyn a traitor and a collaborator, which whatever you think of his politics is a pretty damning - maybe the most damning thing you can say about a potential leader of the country. That kind of language isn’t rare. The Sun called journalist Peter Snow a traitor for his coverage of the Falklands War. Most of the right-wing press savaged some judges because they ruled for parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit dispute. i.e. for doing their jobs.
The papers are pretty extreme. And their stance is normally that if you put yourself out there, for example by running for office, you are fair game. I’m just surprised that a lot of people have only noticed how vicious they are when the left-leaning papers started ramping up their attacks. Are they (and you I guess) really oblivious of the utter barbarity (often hilarious, TBH) of the Tory rags?
I honestly don’t think that alt-media has added anything, the biases of the UK press have always been very clear to anybody who wanted to look. But let’s face it, if you’re a right-of-centre voter do you actively look for bias in right wing papers? Isn’t it more the case that you are more likely to dismiss it as mischief-making rather than slander? Because I‘m sure the leftists have always seen it as slander rather than mischief-making. It’s no surprise that we all view reporting through our own lenses.
What I find really interesting is the belief that Sargon should sue for defamation. There are two aspects to that, first that he may have been libelled, which may certainly be true. But it would be hard to prove, to my knowledge there is no requirement for any media to provide context for any quote, that may be the decent and reasonable thing but it’s not the law. The second part is that to secure damages he would have to have suffered damage. The fact that he is becoming more popular, and gaining a higher income, is actually detrimental to his case. He can’t claim that his reputation has been ruined so he’s therefore entitled to damages to restore his fortunes to where they would otherwise have been when his income is increasing in part because of the attacks on him.
Has any paper ever claimed that Corbyn said it was "ok to rape young boys"? I'd say that goes far beyond calling someone a traitor or collaborator. I get that the standard of proof under defamation law has to been extremely strict, but if there is no legal recourse for being slandered in that fashion, then there's hardly any point of having these laws on the books. The system is also clearly broken if a Scottish comedian can be convicted for making a video of a dog doing the Hitler salute, but a major newspaper can get away with deliberately and erroneously misquoting someone to make them look like a paedophile apologist.
The behaviour and biases of the British press remind me of (IMHO) the zenith of British comedy - Bottom.
Eddie : Bloody Nora! Neil Kinnock's grandparents were homosexual Martians! He's kept quiet about that, hasn't he?
Richie : Mhmmmm
Eddie : Lucky I read that, I was going to vote Labour
I’m not saying there is no recourse, I’m saying it may be a phyrric victory because he would have to prove not just that it happened but that it was damaging. Elton John once took the Sun for a bundle of cash for printing that he might be gay (I know, who knew?!) because he argued that a lot of his fans would be turned off buying his records. I imagine printing that now would be a career booster so you’d be hard pressed to sue successfully even if it was incorrect.
I guess the problem with being contrarian (and by the way I agree with much of what he says) is that you give plenty of ammunition to the unscrupulous and the shitstirrers.
Didn't that kill Jason Donovan's career? But maybe he had a heap more gay fans.
Is Sargon really that contrarian? Yes in relation to the PC crowd but I think most sensible people will agree with much of what he says. That rape joke was obviously in very bad taste, but if you're offended by that then every episode of the Family Guy or South Park would make you faint.
He’s contrarian to the current orthodoxy. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but he certainly challenges the prevailing views of the opinion makers. Just my view.
-
When you see it
edit.
Oh my god. I just realised these weren't taken from individuals..but a charity shop.
I wonder if the police are aware of the true scope of the weapons problem in the UK, I've heard rumours that every single UK resident has at least one if not multiple weapons of this magnitude. -
British Politics