-
@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. -
-
The replies to that tweet are solid gold.
-
More than half those are kitchen knives. Mass hysteria and panic, everywhere.
-
@No-Quarter said in British Politics:
The replies to that tweet are solid gold.
Just outstanding stuff.
It's funny as all hell..but consider this.
You write something 'edgy' on social media, like 'Islam is bad' or 'Women don't have a penis' etc. Enough to have the police to come around but not enough to have you charged, you get a little lippy at the ridiculousness of it all and they use that as just cause to do a weapons search of the house.
They find your massive weapons stash in the top kitchen drawer.
The Guardian/Mirror/Independent/Buzzfeed then release simultaneous articles on a white supremacist transphobe arrested with a weapons stash in central London.
Politicians then use this as evidence to further restrict freedoms and access to cutlery!
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
@jegga I'm guessing BBQ's are out of the question this summer too.
Also how much damage can an Epée do? If a bloke in a dark alley came at me with one of those I might actually laugh.I’d imagine @Bones being from Eastbourne sees an epee as a fighting knife .
-
This is bloody annoying.. turns out everytime I call @Hooroo a spoon, I am actually calling him a weapon? FFS.
-
@jegga said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
@jegga I'm guessing BBQ's are out of the question this summer too.
Also how much damage can an Epée do? If a bloke in a dark alley came at me with one of those I might actually laugh.I’d imagine @Bones being from Eastbourne sees an epee as a fighting knife .
How very dare you. I think you'll find sir that in my trusty hands, that's a wmd.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback but did you call him a big spoon or a little spoon!?
-
There is like 64 'weapons' there. Of those only 2 you could even class as weapons and that's assuming they are sharp/made of a firm material..and considering this police farce are literally trying to palm off multiple bread knives as a weapons haul then I'd say there is a better than decent chance these aren't weapons either.
What the he'll is going on for them to think this was a good idea?
British Politics