-
@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?
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
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.Is that little cutlass type thing a letter opener?
-
@jegga said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
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.Is that little cutlass type thing a letter opener?
And steady on where you're waving that knife sheath. Especially if you're trying to sharpen the mini carving fork on the knife sharpener!
-
@MajorRage said in British Politics:
Searches brain ... searches internet ... searches soul.
Nup, nothing I can do to defend Britain from TSF onslaught this time!
Thats because all your knives have been confiscated. And some of the forks too. And at least one spoon.
First they came for the knives and I did nothing because I was not a knife. Then they came for the forks and ...........
#cutlerypurge.
British Politics