|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 13:20:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 12, 2019 13:31:03 GMT
Sounds way OTT to me. The current Tory leadership are trying to attract the voters who went for UKIP and now the Brexit party but the far right are not worth their while, those idiots are only hangers-on and presumably attracted towards the Tories because that's the closest thing they have to a chance at being part of a mainstream party.
Once this is all resolved I presume the Tories will lurch back towards the centre a bit and the extremists can go back to the National Front.
The irony here is that immigration from outwith Europe, i.e. the people who the far right might think are less like us than our near neighbours, is higher than ever.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 13:33:19 GMT
Is there anyone Owen Jones doesn't agree with that he hasn't accused of being far right? The polarisation of terms in political debate, and even generally, has a lot to answer for. If you throw around words like coup, fascist, dictator and so on they become entirely meaningless when the real things come along.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 13:47:03 GMT
The irony here is that immigration from outwith Europe... Ahh my favourite bit of Scottish English..."outwith"...
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 13:53:05 GMT
Is there anyone Owen Jones doesn't agree with that he hasn't accused of being far right? The polarisation of terms in political debate, and even generally, has a lot to answer for. If you throw around words like coup, fascist, dictator and so on they become entirely meaningless when the real things come along. Although the real things don't actually tend to come to power in bloody coups in Europe. It's traditionally been more of a "death by a thousand cuts route", and that risk cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It is an OTT piece for sure in my view, but it does also trouble me that Downing St is occupied by people who seem untroubled by their popularity with some of the least savoury people in UK politics.
It is a major conundrum. Freedom of speech should be a basic right. But what do you do when it is used to promote hatred and repression in a manner that, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in a severe curtailing of the right to freedom of speech?
|
|
|
Post by franki68 on Sept 12, 2019 13:56:36 GMT
Owen Jones ? He will probably change his mind next week
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 13:58:08 GMT
You're assuming we have freedom of speech, we don't. Owen Jones is one of the most notable abusers of censorship going. To those who dare to have an opinion that differs to his are accused of racism, transphobia, far-right you name it. He's typical of a behaviour on the left that has increased to a startling degree. My overwhelming response to his article is that you reap what you sow. If people repeatedly silenced then they will find other ways to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 14:06:59 GMT
You're assuming we have freedom of speech, we don't. Owen Jones is one of the most notable abusers of censorship going. To those who dare to have an opinion that differs to his are accused of racism, transphobia, far-right you name it. He's typical of a behaviour on the left that has increased to a startling degree. My overwhelming response to his article is that you reap what you sow. If people repeatedly silenced then they will find other ways to be heard. Hang on a minute. Freedom of speech does not entail the right to say whatever you want without being opposed. It simply affords you the right to say what you like, irrespective of whether what you are saying is popular or not.
Not having freedom of speech means being arrested and/or charged and/or locked-up for speaking your mind. It means having policemen or other agents of the state harass or intimidate you and your loved ones, or invade your home, or confiscate your assets.
It doesn't mean being called a sexist by a columnist of a different political persuasion to you.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 14:11:14 GMT
Not having freedom of speech means being arrested and/or charged and/or locked-up for speaking your mind. It means having policemen or other agents of the state harass or intimidate you and your loved ones, or invade your home, or confiscate your assets. This sort of thing?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 14:42:21 GMT
Not having freedom of speech means being arrested and/or charged and/or locked-up for speaking your mind. It means having policemen or other agents of the state harass or intimidate you and your loved ones, or invade your home, or confiscate your assets. This sort of thing?
In a country genuinely without freedom of speech, this wouldn't get reported in a leading national newspaper with MPs weighing in to say that the police should have better things to do. Which they indeed should.
I'm strongly in favour of freedom of speech and hold the robust view that the professionally offended should be repeatedly offended until they just learn to get over themselves. But to suggest we don't have freedom of speech in this country just belittles those billions of people around the world who genuinely live without the freedom to speak their mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 12, 2019 14:53:06 GMT
It is an OTT piece for sure in my view, but it does also trouble me that Downing St is occupied by people who seem untroubled by their popularity with some of the least savoury people in UK politics.
You mean the DUP?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 15:06:34 GMT
In a country genuinely without freedom of speech, this wouldn't get reported in a leading national newspaper with MPs weighing in to say that the police should have better things to do. Which they indeed should.
I'm strongly in favour of freedom of speech and hold the robust view that the professionally offended should be repeatedly offended until they just learn to get over themselves. But to suggest we don't have freedom of speech in this country just belittles those billions of people around the world who genuinely live without the freedom to speak their mind.
Freedom obviously exists on a scale and we currently have more than most, but with the invention of hate speech laws we have less than we did. Going back to Owen Jones, he uses this kind of stuff to shut down debate and coerce others into world view. To these people it's not about respecting a difference of opinion, it's about those who don't share their opinion being punished one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 12, 2019 15:16:18 GMT
Doesn't, for example, the Daily Telegraph have an array of people doing something similar from the right wing? The name Alison Pearson springs to mind - maybe she's just in thrall to Boris' overwhelming sexual magnetism though and refuses to countenance any criticism of him
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 15:16:31 GMT
In a country genuinely without freedom of speech, this wouldn't get reported in a leading national newspaper with MPs weighing in to say that the police should have better things to do. Which they indeed should.
I'm strongly in favour of freedom of speech and hold the robust view that the professionally offended should be repeatedly offended until they just learn to get over themselves. But to suggest we don't have freedom of speech in this country just belittles those billions of people around the world who genuinely live without the freedom to speak their mind.
Freedom obviously exists on a scale and we currently have more than most, but with the invention of hate speech laws we have less than we did. Going back to Owen Jones, he uses this kind of stuff to shut down debate and coerce others into world view. To these people it's not about respecting a difference of opinion, it's about those who don't share their opinion being punished one way or another.
Well I rather agree with you on Owen Jones, who as I pointed out at the beginning, I cannot abide. But I would point out that the hate speech laws exist as a reaction to a world that contains people like that hook-handed preacher who incite violence against others and not principally to deny people their right to share material that demeans others.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 15:20:47 GMT
Weren't there adequate laws on inciting violence? I think we're generally on the same page on this, I can't abide Owen Jones as you might have gathered. I don't think Boris Johnson is far-right, though and I haven't got much time for him, either.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 15:26:07 GMT
Doesn't, for example, the Daily Telegraph have an array of people doing something similar from the right wing? The name Alison Pearson springs to mind - maybe she's just in thrall to Boris' overwhelming sexual magnetism though and refuses to countenance any criticism of him Oh not just in the Torygraph. The Sunday Times has Rod Liddle, who is a boorish manchild of truly Brobdingnagian proportions and vomits a sort of juvenile right-wing agitprop in which anyone left of Tebbit is a hairy-legged feminist commie, and then there is the Time's Quentin Letts, who simply comes across as a nasty little poison-fanged ferret of a man with a crush on Jacob Rees-Mogg. I force myself read their columns because it is good to read the articles of those of an opposing view and they are both occasionally amusing in their turn of phrase, but generally doing so makes me want to break things. All apparently incapable of viewing life through a non-partisan lens, or at the very least paid to do so.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 15:29:04 GMT
Weren't there adequate laws on inciting violence? I think we're generally on the same page on this, I can't abide Owen Jones as you might have gathered. I don't think Boris Johnson is far-right, though and I haven't got much time for him, either. I don't think Boris is inherently far-right but then I don't think he is inherently anything other than pro-Boris, and I worry that his arrogance is currently extending to saddling a far-right charger that he thinks he can control but which he almost certainly can't.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 12, 2019 15:47:01 GMT
Weren't there adequate laws on inciting violence? I think we're generally on the same page on this, I can't abide Owen Jones as you might have gathered. I don't think Boris Johnson is far-right, though and I haven't got much time for him, either. I don't think Boris is inherently far-right but then I don't think he is inherently anything other than pro-Boris, and I worry that his arrogance is currently extending to saddling a far-right charger that he thinks he can control but which he almost certainly can't. To continue that a bit I don't think Boris will have given any thought to whether he can control his far-right steed as he knows that once it's done what he needs it to he'll simply get off and walk away, completely unscathed by any negativity in the eyes of his unquestioning supporters in a mysteriously Trumpian way.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 12, 2019 17:49:21 GMT
Owen Jones is a wanker who has never written anything of remote sense. I can’t take pleasure in him being beaten up in Manchester recently, but I secretly did.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 12, 2019 19:13:22 GMT
I'm strongly in favour of freedom of speech and hold the robust view that the professionally offended should be repeatedly offended until they just learn to get over themselves.
Nice phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 12, 2019 19:14:52 GMT
The Sunday Times has Rod Liddle, who is a boorish manchild of truly Brobdingnagian proportions and vomits a sort of juvenile right-wing agitprop in which anyone left of Tebbit is a hairy-legged feminist commie, and then there is the Time's Quentin Letts, who simply comes across as a nasty little poison-fanged ferret of a man with a crush on Jacob Rees-Mogg. I force myself read their columns because it is good to read the articles of those of an opposing view and they are both occasionally amusing in their turn of phrase, but generally doing so makes me want to break things.
And some more nice phrases. Are you Piers in disguise today? I agree with you about Rod Liddle.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 13, 2019 13:01:07 GMT
I'm strongly in favour of freedom of speech and hold the robust view that the professionally offended should be repeatedly offended until they just learn to get over themselves.
Nice phrase. I am also strongly in favour of freedom of speech. The trouble is that although we like to pretend we have freedom of speech we don't. Freedom of speech is no more than a box of allowable opinions, and that box can be changed by lots of things - the law, society, pressure groups, events etc. The left - people like Owen Jones - have been very successful in making opinions that are very different to theirs seem to be outside the allowed box. Usually by use of the "r" word or the designation of anyone who disagrees with them as "far right", a phrase now sadly in the mainstream of press coverage, used to describe people who are not really far right at all. If Owen Jones wants to uphold his right to write left-wing diatribes, then unless he also supports people's rights to voice a different opinion - like a right-wing diatrible - he's a total hypocrite. Which I suspect very strongly he is.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 13, 2019 13:08:10 GMT
Not having freedom of speech means being arrested and/or charged and/or locked-up for speaking your mind. It means having policemen or other agents of the state harass or intimidate you and your loved ones, or invade your home, or confiscate your assets.
It doesn't mean being called a sexist by a columnist of a different political persuasion to you.
Not to belabour the point or anything...
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 13, 2019 14:45:06 GMT
I am also strongly in favour of freedom of speech. The trouble is that although we like to pretend we have freedom of speech we don't. Freedom of speech is no more than a box of allowable opinions, and that box can be changed by lots of things - the law, society, pressure groups, events etc. The left - people like Owen Jones - have been very successful in making opinions that are very different to theirs seem to be outside the allowed box. Usually by use of the "r" word or the designation of anyone who disagrees with them as "far right", a phrase now sadly in the mainstream of press coverage, used to describe people who are not really far right at all. If Owen Jones wants to uphold his right to write left-wing diatribes, then unless he also supports people's rights to voice a different opinion - like a right-wing diatrible - he's a total hypocrite. Which I suspect very strongly he is. You have used the phrase 'the left' while making a point of criticism about how they refer to 'the far right'. I'd say people who share Owen Jones' apparent views are 'the far left' and that there is a nice big bit of ground around the centre that encompasses both 'the left' and 'the right' without including any extremes of those. Further I'd say that the majority, if not all, of us on here fall into that area. While I agree with your point for balance you should point out that there are plenty of people (on 'the right' ) who refer to 'the left' as if they've stepped in something nasty.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 13, 2019 16:44:16 GMT
You have used the phrase 'the left' while making a point of criticism about how they refer to 'the far right'. I'd say people who share Owen Jones' apparent views are 'the far left' and that there is a nice big bit of ground around the centre that encompasses both 'the left' and 'the right' without including any extremes of those. Further I'd say that the majority, if not all, of us on here fall into that area. While I agree with your point for balance you should point out that there are plenty of people (on 'the right' ) who refer to 'the left' as if they've stepped in something nasty. You're correct, I should have said "far-left". Slip of the pen. And I also agree that most people fall nicely in the middle ground between these two extremes. Which goes to show that everyone in the middle should just tell the people at each extreme to fucking get over themselves. Although I suspect that would only lead to them being labelled as either fascist or communist by the people who need to get over themselves.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 13, 2019 18:55:14 GMT
That is certainly true! I've been called a lefty and a commie by various Brexiteers which is frankly so wrong it's borderline hilarious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 19:53:10 GMT
Like people, the truth lies mostly in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Sept 14, 2019 9:36:38 GMT
Not having freedom of speech means being arrested and/or charged and/or locked-up for speaking your mind. It means having policemen or other agents of the state harass or intimidate you and your loved ones, or invade your home, or confiscate your assets. This sort of thing?
Maybe that's an extreme example, real though it is, but as another example, a local MP was contacted by email by a constituent who totally opposed the MP's Brexit stance. The emails were non-threatening, not abusive, simply expressing a strong opinion. Reported, now being investigated as a "hate incident" (even though there is no hate element) and the police bosses are pushing the investigation along. Totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 14, 2019 10:36:36 GMT
Yes totally wrong. But is it correct that the Police have targets to meet in terms of investigations conducted to show that they are doing something?
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Sept 14, 2019 11:02:43 GMT
Yes totally wrong. But is it correct that the Police have targets to meet in terms of investigations conducted to show that they are doing something? There's minimum investigation standards and Home Office Charging Standards, plus CPS advice required on a set list of offences. I don't believe there are targets for recording crime that say a certain number of crimes of a certain type must be recorded. Individual forces possibly have their own detection targets. I'm not at all sure what the monitoring criteria are. The issue in the case I mentioned is that, having seen some of the emails, I can't see where the offence is made out. However, being an MP apparently gets you a premium service.
|
|