Media silence

#43
Here's Harriet Harman making a "joke" about the Holocaust that is indisputably grossly offensive. Andrew Neil, her interviewer, is obviously offended. Has Hattie been nicked or are lefties immune from hate speech legislation?

Was she making a joke? Or using the joke as an example?

Is it grossly offensive? I would say it’s just a shit joke.
Is it hate speech?
Is Andrew Neil really offended or does he have someone in his ear screaming DANGER DANGER shut her down.
 
#44
Bottom line, don't be a dick - even the outraged right on Arrse can't save you - same runs for the outraged left, behave like a dick, expect repercussions
 
#45
Bottom line, don't be a dick - even the outraged right on Arrse can't save you - same runs for the outraged left, behave like a dick, expect repercussions
Legal repercussions though? Are you sure that’s what you want, you towering horses ****.
 
#46
He's had his day in court though - so do the courts keep going until you get the result YOU like? No, much simpler all round - don't be a dick in the first place, and if you chose to be a dick don't be surprised when there's consequences

And as the OP's polint was that 'the media' hadn't covered the issue when they had, what she meant was that 'the media' hadn't covered the story in the way she'd like
 
#48
.......or do some of those on the right think they should be offended that some people find some things offensive, although their reasoning is not too clear, or those who jump on any passing 'political correctness gone mad' bandwagon so as to appear 'right on' with their right wing "social media friends"? It's a conundrum, isn't it?

Bottom line? Don't be a dick or read the Daily Mail
 
#50
Pugs mainly
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#51
But the problem with 'online' is that is either fake news, or sensationalist BS, posted by some numskull who wants their 15 minutes of fame...
All news content, with a few honourable exceptions, is managed, much of it to the point of deception. Part of the reason that 'Fake News' is so effective is that there is no reliable MSM alternative for immediate rebuttal. If you want to have any chance whatsoever of having a clue what's going on, you need to monitor at least four or five outlets from different parts of the spectrum and with a couple of internationals thrown in. Few people have the time or the inclination to do that.

It doesn't help either that TV news reporting is generally picture-led and, by its very nature, tends to blur the lines between news and comment. Nor does it help that many of the journalists are generalists and have to pick up the story and make something cogent, compelling and comprehensible to the masses at short notice and often on the basis of a low knowledge base.

As far as this case is concerned, if one accepts the 'General Interest' principle as legally valid, as EU members are required to do under Article 52, this type of prosecution is entirely legitimate and there is no 'Freedom of Speech' defence. It's why people need to pay more attention to constitutional affairs and understand that Brexit is bigger than fish, cars and aviation.
 
#52
He's had his day in court though - so do the courts keep going until you get the result YOU like? No, much simpler all round - don't be a dick in the first place, and if you chose to be a dick don't be surprised when there's consequences

And as the OP's polint was that 'the media' hadn't covered the issue when they had, what she meant was that 'the media' hadn't covered the story in the way she'd like
The contention is that both the court & the law is wrong and constitutes an oppressive precedent attacking free speech.

You know law is just written by people, and judges are just people in funny wigs?

Don’t do that intellectually lazy arrse thing where you argue the law and the legal system is infallible and perfect and people should just shut up and get on with it.

Ironically given the police accused him of being a nazi sympathiser, the police and courts acted in a way which wouldn’t have been out of place in the third reich.
 
#53
The contention is that both the court & the law is wrong and constitutes an oppressive precedent attacking free speech.

You know law is just written by people, and judges are just people in funny wigs?

Don’t do that intellectually lazy arrse thing where you argue the law and the legal system is infallible and perfect and people should just shut up and get on with it.

Ironically given the police accused him of being a nazi sympathiser, the police and courts acted in a way which wouldn’t have been out of place in the third reich.
Pretty much i agree with all this. While he's been a mong, getting in legal lumber is bollocks. This could lead us down a very slippery slope of creeping censorship.
 
#54
His actions were crass and insensitive, but the CPS should have dropped it when they could see it quite blatantly wasn't a hate crime

Butterfly on a wheel comes to mind, a bit like when the establishment went after the Rolling Stones for taking drugs and wanted to make an example out of them
 
#55
I believe its a slippery slope from current ill defined offensive speech standards to a possible return of blasphemy laws religious or otherwise.
We're well on the way to that. Someone I know was up for a charge under the recently repealed "offensive behaviour at football" Act. Basically a Police officer said he heard the guy shout/sing something offensive and the whole thing ended up dragging on for about 18 months before getting binned with the Police officer involved being deemed "not a credible witness".

Still it's 18 months of wondering whether you're going to be on the end of a custodial sentence, because that's the way it works up here. Kick someones heid in or kill their pet dog and you'll get a fiscal fine or community payback order. Say something some random deems offensive and it's off to the Bar-L.
 
#56
He's had his day in court though - so do the courts keep going until you get the result YOU like? No, much simpler all round - don't be a dick in the first place, and if you chose to be a dick don't be surprised when there's consequences
There is a difference between being shunned or ridiculed and being arrested, charged and then convicted. My point is that this was brought to court in the first place. and its not as if the Police have money to burn, while in many forces they are asking the public to 'mind' what they say.

Much like the time and effort every time Katie Hopkins says something unlikable, she can find herself being questioned 'down the nick' while the court of public opinion has already dealt its views and in the main dismiss her as a 'rent a gob'.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=k...fox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=AC6yWtBW0YaABuKto-AI

All the while Police not attending or ignoring crime scenes.
Police tell 69-year-old theft victim they are 'too busy' to investigate
Metropolitan Police to stop investigating some crimes
Number of child sexual abuse victims in Rotherham raised to 1,510
Rotherham abuse inquiry ‘needs 100 more officers’


And as the OP's polint was that 'the media' hadn't covered the issue when they had, what she meant was that 'the media' hadn't covered the story in the way she'd like
The media with the exception of breitbart who are not seen by some as legitimate media, did not cover Hyde park at all, negatively or positively. I would have thought the numbers that tipped up at Hyde park and the reason why is significant, regardless of of political leaning.

Can I ask how you know "that 'the media' hadn't covered the story in the way she'd liked" or my personal and political bias as to how free speech and hate laws, likely to punish and silence equally dum ass socialists as much as tramp kicking Tories, and all in-between.

While I despise the tactics and ideology of Antifa, they have the right to assemble, say and thus think whatever they want, it is only when they use riot and the hecklers veto that they cross the line. Its the same with the far right, both are mongs in my view.

Yet
Thousands in anti-Brexit London march
Thousands in UK march to support Gaza
 
#57
We're well on the way to that. Someone I know was up for a charge under the recently repealed "offensive behaviour at football" Act. Basically a Police officer said he heard the guy shout/sing something offensive and the whole thing ended up dragging on for about 18 months before getting binned with the Police officer involved being deemed "not a credible witness".

Still it's 18 months of wondering whether you're going to be on the end of a custodial sentence, because that's the way it works up here. Kick someones heid in or kill their pet dog and you'll get a fiscal fine or community payback order. Say something some random deems offensive and it's off to the Bar-L.
'Sticks and stones' illegal. 'Words will never hurt me' now also illegal. 8O
 
#58
'Sticks and stones' illegal. 'Words will never hurt me' now also illegal. 8O
I'm not that old (I'm 45) and I'm not some reactionary rotary club type, I was part of the rave generation with everything that entailed, open minded, but honestly I think I've stepped into some kind of alternate universe at times. Then again the PC brigade are anything but open minded, they're the reactionaries and woe betide you if you don't ascribe to their extremely narrow world view.
 
#59
I'm not that old (I'm 45) and I'm not some reactionary rotary club type, I was part of the rave generation with everything that entailed, open minded, but honestly I think I've stepped into some kind of alternate universe at times. Then again the PC brigade are anything but open minded, they're the reactionaries and woe betide you if you don't ascribe to their extremely narrow world view.
I'm not only of the rave generation but I'm also somewhere tomthe left of Ghandi with my politics and I still think this shit is killing society.

It all comes from identity politics which is the perfect divide and conquer situation. Every ****** is bleating on about their own niche minority issues and bigger picture politics is slipping away.

Loathe though I am to agree with Jordan Peterson (having watched his vids and read his latest book) if you can't ******* make your bed in the morning and you add nothing to society what makes you think you can change the world.

What really worries me is that I can ping when someone has said something that could trigger/offend and I'm almost accepting the position that "you have to be careful what you say"

Unfortunately challenging this situation gets you labelled as Alt-right/racist/transphobic etc etc

Dynamically changing labels are particularly dangerous, I was telling my dad he shouldn't call people "coloured" this is after a previous considerable period of time where he didn't want to call anyone black as he thought it was offensive, now black is out and "of colour" is the acceptable label de jour, importantly only if used with the all important "of" otherwise it's still offensive. Now West Indian is out of favour.

The idea that if you control/own the language you are empowered is a great concept but doesn't work if you have a thousand disparate interest groups wanting different labels backed up by decades of sociological academics looking to make a name in the specialist subject of their choice.

There are massive issues in society but if you can't feed you kids and your husband has a minimum wage job on zero contract hours do you really give a **** if some noisy, mentally ill teenager with purple hair and facial piercings wants to be called they rather than he or she
 
Last edited:
#60

Similar threads