O/T For those who claim that the BBC is left wing.

[rolymiller]

Not saying it should be left wing I am saying it isn't left wing as some say on here.

[rolymiller]

It does cater for some left wing stuff but more often than not doesn't

[ragingpup]

Of course it's a concern of mine it should be a concern to everyone, it will be if it is taken away but then it's often too late. Some of these people who decide what is offensive and shouldn't be said are some of the most vile bigoted folk ive ever encountered, really think they're superior to everyone just like the real racists and act just like what they claim to be fighting but it's ok when they do it.

You may think I'm pretty extreme but as long as it's not harassment, libel, slander calling for violence which there's laws to protect us from I'm pretty much for people being allowed to say what they want and of course if people say things we don't like we can challenge them and debate, if you don't want to be challenged on your beliefs tough sh!t is how I believe it should be, I want as close to true equality as possible.

Social media has changed everything some good mostly bad because of how these dodgy massive companies operate, but this is how many are now communicating and many on the left now support massive businesses doing what they want because they're banning people they don't like without realising people on the left have also had their accounts removed. These companies are controling what people see and putting people in echo chambers, yes I'm uncomfortable with that.

So your concern is specifically web sites that block accounts? Can you give me some specific examples of users that you feel have been unfairly blocked and the reasons that were given (if any) by the website? I think we’ve had this discussion before in relation to FB banning certain posters like Yaxley-Lennon. I think the issue was/is the right of any private business (not under state pressure) to act in a way that serves their public/business image and prevent losses of profits. Therefore, if they receive a lot of complaints from a significant number of customers about the views expressed by a person using their service, aired into the public domain, surely they have a right to define a policy of what they, as an independent commercial enterprise, feel is appropriate and respond to the views of their customers, who in turn have a right to withdraw their custom with that company if they don’t like the views of certain people who also use it?

Do you have a ‘like to see’ solution to this? Should a website or any independent (of the state) commercial enterprise be forced (in your opinion) to keep such posters (or products) against their will, even though it might impact on their public image and sales? Wouldn’t it be more so sinister to enforce this on a private enterprise against their will?? What are you suggesting as far as what you would like to see done?

If the state was interfering, and forcing a company that was expressing views, or allowing subscribers to express views, that although controversial, are perfectly lawful, then that would be a different matter. If you have seen that happening, please link me and I’d be happy to look at it.

I personally have seen nothing to suggest that you are extreme. You raise points about censorship that are valid and towards which we should be vigilant, but I’m not convinced that there are workable, fair solutions to what you want to do. It seems to me that all of the things that you want to say, on any forum, would be permitted to be expressed? If not, what do you feel that you would be banned from saying? Can you give examples?

[Exiletyke]

So your concern is specifically web sites that block accounts? Can you give me some specific examples of users that you feel have been unfairly blocked and the reasons that were given (if any) by the website? I think we’ve had this discussion before in relation to FB banning certain posters like Yaxley-Lennon. I think the issue was/is the right of any private business (not under state pressure) to act in a way that serves their public/business image and prevent losses of profits. Therefore, if they receive a lot of complaints from a significant number of customers about the views expressed by a person using their service, aired into the public domain, surely they have a right to define a policy of what they, as an independent commercial enterprise, feel is appropriate and respond to the views of their customers, who in turn have a right to withdraw their custom with that company if they don’t like the views of certain people who also use it?

Do you have a ‘like to see’ solution to this? Should a website or any independent (of the state) commercial enterprise be forced (in your opinion) to keep such posters (or products) against their will, even though it might impact on their public image and sales? Wouldn’t it be more so sinister to enforce this on a private enterprise against their will?? What are you suggesting as far as what you would like to see done?

If the state was interfering, and forcing a company that was expressing views, or allowing subscribers to express views, that although controversial, are perfectly lawful, then that would be a different matter. If you have seen that happening, please link me and I’d be happy to look at it.

I personally have seen nothing to suggest that you are extreme. You raise points about censorship that are valid and towards which we should be vigilant, but I’m not convinced that there are workable, fair solutions to what you want to do. It seems to me that all of the things that you want to say, on any forum, would be permitted to be expressed? If not, what do you feel that you would be banned from saying? Can you give examples?

He can't give examples, he might be banned

[great_fire]

Churchill came up with the idea, David Maxwell-Fyfe - a Tory politician and a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials - wrote it, lifting elements from the US Constitution, but it's a criminals charter. You're making no sense, gf.

Article 10 enshrines the right to free speech that you are arguing for. Is it a different right to free speech that you are after?

The Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated it gave more rights to criminals, they seem to get treated better than victims of crime now because of it, and Mrs Blair made out like a bandit, loads of work for other Human Rights lawyers as well, you wouldn't be one by any chance?

[Exiletyke]

Earlier in the thread, you expressed agreement for raging's post in which he quite reasonably said:. The BBC simply, by the definition of us all paying licence fees, are bound to provide stories and news that relate to the different sections of the UK that pay into their existence.

What happened? Now, you are complaining that they cater for many people who are interested in the Royal Family and who recognise that Thatcher was one of the most impactive political figures of the twentieth century.

This epitomises debate about the BBC. People interpret impartiality as meaning 'saying things and only covering events that I agree with

Why only saying things and only covering things that you agree with

In't it a bugger this semantics game?

[KerrAvon]

The Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated it gave more rights to criminals, they seem to get treated better than victims of crime now because of it, and Mrs Blair made out like a bandit, loads of work for other Human Rights lawyers as well, you wouldn't be one by any chance?

I'm afraid that's cobblers, gf.

The UK was one of the first signatories to the ECHR in 1951 (hardly surprising since we wrote it) and we accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1960 (hence such landmark cases as Ireland v UK in 1978 and Sunday Times v UK in 1979).

The Human Rights Act (enacted by Parliament rather than Tony Blair) merely imposed an obligation upon British Courts to have regard to the ECHR when interpreting domestic law.

As for criminals being treated better than victims. What do you have in mind? The only Article that has a direct bearing upon criminal law is Article 6 - the right to a fair trial. Are you saying that you think fair trials are a bad idea? Wouldn't you want one if you were accused of a crime? In practise, it has had little bearing upon UK criminal law as various items of UK law were already in place to ensure a fair trial.

But let’s not get distracted from the issue; what is wrong with your right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

[rolymiller]

Pointless asking Kerr he makes things up as usual

[rolymiller]

I hope kerr is a human rights lawyer gf he would go up in my estimation.

[KerrAvon]

Pointless asking Kerr he makes things up as usual

All the time, bud.