Election Year or Fear!

[SithHappens]

You really couldn?t make it up?and yet! Is it hilarious?or terrifying in its lunacy? I thought it was a spoof but no?the POTUS has actually produced this.

Funny yes, but as you say it's scary too.

[ramAnag]

Add me to that list. I?m concerned enough about it personally to have quit as moderator of a fb group (sport based!) where it?s proved difficult to filter out political / anti establishment comments. It?s all getting a bit 1984 as I?ve intimated before

I suppose it’s inevitable that it gets ‘a bit 1984’ given the societal/communication/surveillance changes that have taken place in the last 20 years or so, possibly surpassing the Orwellian vision from 75 years ago.
There are obvious dangers in the policing of what people sometimes say/write and sometimes things will be handled badly, as they always have been in other aspects of law enforcement. Mistakes are made.
On the other hand there is plenty of anti-government chat on forums such as this and I doubt anyone fears prosecution, and in the case of those who used the internet to incite violence and hatred such as was seen during last summer’s riots…I’m all for them being held to account.

[swaledale]

Seems that the trend nowadays is that talking about doing something is more of a crime than actually doing it, even if there is no mens rea. Not condoning Wilson's comments but .....

Mm but if nothing is done to those who repeatedly make such comments, and then later these same people actually do something terrible, then the same people moaning about "free speech" will be moaning that the Police did nothing when they knew he /she had made such comments.

I'd be very wary of believing some of the **** that's online and in the media re these cases, there are plenty of examples where the Daily fail or Torygrpah, Mirror, Sun BBC Gbeebies et al have deliberately misrepresented such cases as to exclude the salient facts which led to the action, focussing solely on what may have been said/posted.

There is a lot of either careless misreporting, or in many cases deliberate misreporting in order to suit a particular agenda, its a common trick of those on the right, but used by people and politicians of all persuasions. Regrettably much of this misinformation is also repeated on here as gospel by certain individuals - which immediately means I question their judgement and credibility, because its actually not that hard to verify the facts of what's being reported, it just takes time and of course the inclination to do so.

So it might "seem" but in reality it isn't more of a crime to do something than to actually do it, which if you had thought for one moment you'd know.

Obviously the major perpetrator of this guff, is our "Red friend" but then he just repeats what he has heard or seen on various dubious media or online sources that align with his prejudices.

[swaledale]

I suppose it’s inevitable that it gets ‘a bit 1984’ given the societal/communication/surveillance changes that have taken place in the last 20 years or so, possibly surpassing the Orwellian vision from 75 years ago.
There are obvious dangers in the policing of what people sometimes say/write and sometimes things will be handled badly, as they always have been in other aspects of law enforcement. Mistakes are made.
On the other hand there is plenty of anti-government chat on forums such as this and I doubt anyone fears prosecution, and in the case of those who used the internet to incite violence and hatred such as was seen during last summer’s riots…I’m all for them being held to account.

Its a myth spread by those who know its a myth, but would like to create the impression it isn't. Its clear that there a number of the population who seem to believe these myths and half truths, but that merely demonstrates a lack of ability or willingness to actually verify the facts.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale - "So it might "seem" but in reality it isn't more of a crime to do something than to actually do it, which if you had thought for one moment you'd know."

Erm, right? Interesting perspective?

[MadAmster]

Swale - "So it might "seem" but in reality it isn't more of a crime to do something than to actually do it, which if you had thought for one moment you'd know."

Erm, right? Interesting perspective?

The bot in bold It appears you may have omitted a couple of words or you're merely trying to confuse people.

[Geoff Parkstone]

If that's directed at me, I haven't. It's a verbatim lift from Swale's post a couple back

[Trickytreesreds]

No 1984, two tier Kier at work here then?

Naughty words on Facebook, gets you 2.5 years. Beat up a man in the street, even when he's down. Get a jail sentence commuted?

Something stinks very badly here.

https://news.sky.com/story/mike-amesbury-mp-jailed-for-punching-constituent-in-street-walks-free-after-appealing-prison-sentence-13317984

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky, as I said yesterday, I?m happy to let others decide where your sympathies lie.
Yesterday you had a difference of opinion with MA during which, while you don?t actively support Putin, you use the word ?but? and proceed to try and justify the behaviour of Putin and the Russians under his leadership.
While not actually condoning such behaviour you are excusing or defending it and if you don?t recognise that there?s no point in continuing.

As for waiting for my response to your Talk TV clip. You?ll have a long wait and you know that, imo, life is too short to pay any attention whatsoever to the garbage peddled by channels employing the likes of Mike Graham and Jeremy Kyle.

Suggest you take a close look at MA?s two morning pieces on Trump. I doubt you?ll like it but it might provide some more intelligent food for thought than your usual staple of GB News and Talk TV.

I wrote it out for you, to pacify you.
Your favourite comic may dodge these things, but they DO HAPPEN YOU KNOW.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/23/grandmother-spoken-police-criticising-labour-mp-online/

It seems the Labour party don't like being criticised and called out for it. Stalin would have been proud with the way Starmer is steering things.

[ramAnag]

Sometimes I wonder if you read what you post, Tricky. You do realise that Andrew Gwynne has been suspended by Labour and, with regard to Amesbury, that Yvette Cooper is on record as saying ‘Runcorn deserves better representation’, don’t you.

For the record I believe the behaviour of both MPs was reprehensible however, while I don’t know why or how Amesbury has escaped a prison sentence (and neither do you) I equally struggle to understand why you believe Labour have acted improperly or how (beyond your fondness for a little meaningless alliteration) Starmer’s behaviour is in any way reminiscent of Stalin’s

[Trickytreesreds]

Sometimes I wonder if you read what you post, Tricky. You do realise that Andrew Gwynne has been suspended by Labour and, with regard to Amesbury, that Yvette Cooper is on record as saying ?Runcorn deserves better representation?, don?t you.

For the record I believe the behaviour of both MPs was reprehensible however, while I don?t know why or how Amesbury has escaped a prison sentence (and neither do you) I equally struggle to understand why you believe Labour have acted improperly or how (beyond your fondness for a little meaningless alliteration) Starmer?s behaviour is in any way reminiscent of Stalin?s

wow, blinkers dont even cover you.

This is from 2024, where pre election Starmer was all about free speech yet since he's been in, its gone the other way

https://freespeechunion.org/sir-keir-starmers-government-is-undermining-free-speech/

Since then, we've had everyone protesting immigration as far right and sentencing being influenced by Starmers pressure on the courts.
We've had Islamophobia being re described in an attempt to **** up free speech on a religion and ideology. Anything to pacify his fringe voting core.

Frim the institute of voting affaires.

The 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press, ?in order to strengthen the socialist system?.

This was, like so much else about the Soviet constitution, entirely fictional. Censorship was pervasive and freedom of speech nonexistent. As the novelist Vasily Aksyonov wrote: ?what in the West is called Soviet censorship is nothing less than the Soviet air that one breathes?.

So when the Soviet bloc participated in the framing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, it was no surprise that it stridently opposed the blanket statement in support of freedom of speech. To the question of whether Nazis could have freedom of speech, their answer was resoundingly ?no?. Repeatedly during the drafting of the Declaration, the Soviet delegation proposed an amendment that ?freedom of speech and the press should not be used for the purposes of propagating fascism, aggression and for provoking hatred as between nations?. Simultaneously, the Soviets proposed a restriction on freedom of assembly to any organisation of a ?fascist or antidemocratic nature?.

In other words, the right cannot have an opinion and the state ruling body must not be questioned.

I will remind you that Starmer was a hard core supporter of Corbyn, until it didn't suit.

That do you comrade?

[Andy_Faber]

Swale - "So it might "seem" but in reality it isn't more of a crime to do something than to actually do it, which if you had thought for one moment you'd know."

Erm, right? Interesting perspective?

Interesting and incorrect

[ramAnag]

wow, blinkers dont even cover you.

This is from 2024, where pre election Starmer was all about free speech yet since he's been in, its gone the other way

https://freespeechunion.org/sir-keir-starmers-government-is-undermining-free-speech/

Since then, we've had everyone protesting immigration as far right and sentencing being influenced by Starmers pressure on the courts.
We've had Islamophobia being re described in an attempt to **** up free speech on a religion and ideology. Anything to pacify his fringe voting core.

Frim the institute of voting affaires.

The 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press, ?in order to strengthen the socialist system?.

This was, like so much else about the Soviet constitution, entirely fictional. Censorship was pervasive and freedom of speech nonexistent. As the novelist Vasily Aksyonov wrote: ?what in the West is called Soviet censorship is nothing less than the Soviet air that one breathes?.

So when the Soviet bloc participated in the framing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, it was no surprise that it stridently opposed the blanket statement in support of freedom of speech. To the question of whether Nazis could have freedom of speech, their answer was resoundingly ?no?. Repeatedly during the drafting of the Declaration, the Soviet delegation proposed an amendment that ?freedom of speech and the press should not be used for the purposes of propagating fascism, aggression and for provoking hatred as between nations?. Simultaneously, the Soviets proposed a restriction on freedom of assembly to any organisation of a ?fascist or antidemocratic nature?.

In other words, the right cannot have an opinion and the state ruling body must not be questioned.

I will remind you that Starmer was a hard core supporter of Corbyn, until it didn't suit.

That do you comrade?

Don’t know about being ‘frim the institute of voting affaires’, Tricky, but I’ve never heard of such a body and can find no reference to it.
Assuming it exists, it does seem a little tenuous to compare the thoughts of post war Soviet Bloc leaders with the present day.
They might be excused for being a tad tetchy about the Nazis in the immediate aftermath of WW2 don’t you think, and in today’s internet age things have become rather more complex in terms of behaviours that are acceptable or otherwise.

Quite happy to have an intelligent debate about freedom of speech in the age of the internet if that’s where you want to take this although, given your regular outpourings of bile against all things Labour, I’m a little surprised you’re still here, banging on (and on) and haven’t fallen victim to that ‘pervasive censorship’ of yours.

[Andy_Faber]

I?m not sure how we (the English) have lost our culture and customs, AF?maybe you could provide an example otherwise we?ll just have to agree to differ on that one.

There are plenty of Muslims and a variety of migrants in Scotland too, but apparently you think they have ?embraced change? in a way we haven?t which also puzzles me.

Coincidentally it?s the German elections today and I?ve just received a video from a friend over there who is dreading the possible impact of the AfD. The video she?s sent seeks to illustrate how many different nationalities the German system depends on to provide the services they need. Very similar to our NHS - and other services - I suppose. Not sure it?s ?progress? but, in my view, it?s an example of how multiculturalism can be very positive.

rA you were due an answer on this, I?ve been ?indisposed?

Regarding ?examples?, I remain reluctant to offer unverifiable new ones for obvious reasons but I?ll refer back to my earlier comment on a nearby village fete, wrecked by a ?progressive? committee who turned it into a love-in for minority groups with ultimately terminal consequences

Closer to (my) home and verifiable on Facebook to some extent, is ?flag gate?, whereby a minority village faction (actually one person) caused a long running spat by hijacking the use of the villages flagpoles for minority purposes.

Regarding Scotland, not sure I mentioned Muslims in that context, your Berkas slipping

Regarding the last comment that?s the same throughout the ?western? world but if using cheap labour and letting an underclass of local ?talent? fester is multiculturalism, I?ll pass thanks

[ramAnag]

rA you were due an answer on this, I?ve been ?indisposed?

Regarding ?examples?, I remain reluctant to offer unverifiable new ones for obvious reasons but I?ll refer back to my earlier comment on a nearby village fete, wrecked by a ?progressive? committee who turned it into a love-in for minority groups with ultimately terminal consequences

Closer to (my) home and verifiable on Facebook to some extent, is ?flag gate?, whereby a minority village faction (actually one person) caused a long running spat by hijacking the use of the villages flagpoles for minority purposes.

Regarding Scotland, not sure I mentioned Muslims in that context, your Berkas slipping

Regarding the last comment that?s the same throughout the ?western? world but if using cheap labour and letting an underclass of local ?talent? fester is multiculturalism, I?ll pass thanks

In the history of daft answers that has to be one of the silliest.

So you think a minority of people in your village (sorry, actually one person) ‘hijacking’s flag poles’ is symptomatic of the UK losing its culture do you? Honestly?

My ‘berkas slipping’. What’s that meant to mean? Not as much as your grasp of common sense it would seem…and my comment (relayed from Germany) was simply to illustrate how dependent various services have become on those who’ve arrived from abroad, it wasn’t designed to set off one of your rants, but hey ho.