"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
A few islanders are starting to use their boats (wildlife trip type things) to do short hops like Coll to Tiree, or Arisaig to Eigg. This is basically what Slater did.
Expensive, but the market is starting to fill the gap for foot/cycle passengers. I think that tourism in the inner hebs and smaller islands could adapt and survive on that basis - and actually inject some cash into the islanders running the services.
The problem is getting vehicles across to the Outer hebs.
FiveSix point plan:
1. Expand Barra airport (easy, just dump some more sand ) 2. Causeways from Barra-Uists-H&L (can be based on scuttled CalMac feries, if they can get them out that far) 3. Fleet of autonomous electric vehicles for tourists, with in road charging (also makes the passing places run as smoothly as when it's just two islanders; the autonomous vehicles time passing perfectly, as they do) 4. Install tidal turbines in the causeways, to power the above 5. Suitable mitigations for storm surges/floods caused by causeways 6. Profit - lots of high skill jobs for islanders implementing these insane ideas
Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.
I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.
There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.
Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.
I may be completely wrong of course.
Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.
The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.
The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
You would expect views expressed at a adult comedy club to be somewhat hokey. I doubt Joanna Cherry's are at all out of line in that context. The curious thing is why the comedy club invited her in the first place. Is she likely to make anyone laugh? I mean, why not sign up Keir Starmer? It's the way he tells them ...
In relation to what counts as a "protected belief" under the EA, the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson sets out the tests.
What is often misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, is that -
(1) what English or Scottish law says on the topic is subject to the principles set out in Articles 9 & 10 of the ECHR; and
(2) you cannot act in favour of one group with a protected characteristic in such a way as to discriminate, whether directly or indirectly, against another group with a protected characteristic. This latter point is often overlooked.
It is this failure which often leads to the problems which some institutions have got themselves into. They behave as if there is a hierarchy of rights when there isn't.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
There are lots of people who go into it with high expectations which they don't meet. Same as with all creators at all points in history.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
One of Fox jr2's ex girlfriends is a TikToker doing makeup videos, and has over a million followers. Rather a zodiac obsession, but it seems to pull in the viewers:
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.
Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.
I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.
There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.
Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.
I may be completely wrong of course.
Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.
The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.
The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
You would expect views expressed at a adult comedy club to be somewhat hokey. I doubt Joanna Cherry's are at all out of line in that context. The curious thing is why the comedy club invited her in the first place. Is she likely to make anyone laugh? I mean, why not sign up Keir Starmer? It's the way he tells them ...
It was a part of a series by various political thinkers of various different hues, as I understand it. The program was not offered by the Stand itself, they just provided the venue, but by a company which puts on a lot of different fringe events.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
There are lots of people who go into it with high expectations which they don't meet. Same as with all creators at all points in history.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
One of Fox jr2's ex girlfriends is a TikToker doing makeup videos, and has over a million followers. Rather a zodiac obsession, but it seems to pull in the viewers:
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Given the existence of email and working from home, the problem is not a five-day week, it's a seven-day week...
When I was an ambitious young (foolhardy) manager I briefly insisted staff came in on Saturday mornings to smash our targets. I quickly realised that what I gained on Saturday I lost on the subsequent Monday, when those who had worked the weekend were far less productive than usual.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A straw man argument. RdMC openly advocated violence and genocide against the Tutsis. As did Abu Hamza. Both of these would be covered by laws against inciting violence. Indeed, although some charges of hate speech were included in the case against Hamza, the main charges he was found guilty of were inciting violence.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.
I am not suggesting Barclay is fit for leadership, just that Tories may well pick him. His role at Health is to balance the books by breaking the staff unions, then to blame staff for the pisspoor quality of the service. This tickles the erogenous zones of the turnip taliban.
Bet365 in High Court battle over customer who gambled 162 times on Christmas Eve Customer claims he lost almost £300,000 over three years ... Aside from his Christmas Eve betting spree, he was able to place more than 30 bets per day on 33 different occasions. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/14/bet365-high-court-responsible-gambling/ (£££)
At a lower level, I'm sure many have placed more than 30 bets a day; a yankee is 11 bets so three of those on a busy weekend will see you clear that threshold. It does not necessarily indicate loss of control.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
There are lots of people who go into it with high expectations which they don't meet. Same as with all creators at all points in history.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
One of Fox jr2's ex girlfriends is a TikToker doing makeup videos, and has over a million followers. Rather a zodiac obsession, but it seems to pull in the viewers:
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
There are lots of people who go into it with high expectations which they don't meet. Same as with all creators at all points in history.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
One of Fox jr2's ex girlfriends is a TikToker doing makeup videos, and has over a million followers. Rather a zodiac obsession, but it seems to pull in the viewers:
The ones I know who are "successful" end up with ~600-1000 patreons providing an average of £15/month (less platform fees) which is about 6-10k of monthly revenue for quite a lot of work. The risk of churn is also very high - you have to build a strong community around the channel through e.g. Discord or whatever so that people would miss their online friends if they abandoned the Patreon.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
I think Max has previously opined on something similar to this, and said that going to four and a half days has increased his office's productivity ?
I have worked 4 1/2 day weeks for many years now. Indeed I have turned down jobs/interview where the insistence is to work Friday PM. I do not know if it has made me more efficienct but I do value an early finish on a Friday.
I just cannot see how it works for jobs on production lines, for example, that are limited by cycle times of equipment. You cannot just increase the speed of the machinery. She talks about increased automation. That will end up simply displacing the very workers she is wanting to have extra time off.
I was offered an interview at Land Rover over a decade ago but they made it clear it was 3.30 finish on Friday and if you don't like it don't go for the interview. So I didn't go for the interview.
Indeed. But it's also possible that 7 day operation of plant might just as well be facilitated without 5 day working weeks ?
If you've ever been in a hospital over a weekend, you'll know just how much some of the services drop off. True seven day operation of service might be far more efficient that what we have now is dealing with patient demand ? A five day week isn't necessarily the best way to facilitate that.
There are complicated matters. Obviously an overnight change would be seriously disruptive. But historically, we managed the transition from six to five days weeks well enough.
7 day operation of plant already happens with five and four and a half day working weeks. As long as you have cover of certain functions that are operationally based. Production engineering, maintenance, operational supply chain for example. These can be split to match production too. So, yes you could go to a shorter working week in number of days per person, as long as you still cover key functions.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to say that The Stand is an excellent comedy club and I've had a great time whenever I've been. I've only been to see comedy acts there, though. Not sure I would want to go listen to politicians (of any stripe) there.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A silly comment because inciting violence has always been an accepted exception to free speech and there is nothing on my header which says or suggests that I think otherwise.
Saying something that X disagrees with is not the same as inciting violence against X.
In relation to what counts as a "protected belief" under the EA, the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson sets out the tests.
What is often misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, is that -
(1) what English or Scottish law says on the topic is subject to the principles set out in Articles 9 & 10 of the ECHR; and
(2) you cannot act in favour of one group with a protected characteristic in such a way as to discriminate, whether directly or indirectly, against another group with a protected characteristic. This latter point is often overlooked.
It is this failure which often leads to the problems which some institutions have got themselves into. They behave as if there is a hierarchy of rights when there isn't.
It appears that there was a good deal of common sense all round which prevented this going any further. Good work by the lawyers involved.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A straw man argument. RdMC openly advocated violence and genocide against the Tutsis. As did Abu Hamza. Both of these would be covered by laws against inciting violence. Indeed, although some charges of hate speech were included in the case against Hamza, the main charges he was found guilty of were inciting violence.
Indeed. I'm delighted you agree "free speech" isn't an absolute.
Unfortunately the Americans in Rwanda didn't agree with you:
As the genocide was taking place, the United States military drafted a plan to jam RTLM's broadcasts, but this action was never taken, with officials claiming that the cost of the operation, international broadcast agreements and "the American commitment to free speech" made the operation unfeasible.
The United Kingdom will start basic training for Ukrainian pilots on different kind of aircrafts in the summer and is working with other countries on a possible shipment of F-16s to Ukraine, the UK government reports. https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658020215878213632
“Sunak will confirm further provision of hundreds of air-defence missiles and more unmanned aerial systems, including hundreds of new long-range attack drones with a range of more than 200km, Downing Street said.” https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1658022892125265921
This is the war where small drones have really come into their own.
Training pilots is all well and good, but it takes years and costs millions per pilot, from basic training to combat-ready. You will need a steady supply of them, but so much of the work can now be done with relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft.
There was a quite enjoyable podcast from The Economist recently about the use of Drones in Ukraine :
"How Ukrainian drones could change the way wars are fought everywhere
Our podcast on science and technology. As more unmanned vehicles take to the skies—many of them engineered by civilians—we explore how the technology is changing warfare"
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A silly comment because inciting violence has always been an accepted exception to free speech and there is nothing on my header which says or suggests that I think otherwise.
Saying something that X disagrees with is not the same as inciting violence against X.
Oh good. We now have "accepted exceptions to free speech".
Can you clarify how you square this with decrying "Free speech for me but not for thee... And what will you say then, the laws and conventions to protect you having been cut down by you in your zeal to enforce your views on others?"? Because the two sound exactly the same to me.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A straw man argument. RdMC openly advocated violence and genocide against the Tutsis. As did Abu Hamza. Both of these would be covered by laws against inciting violence. Indeed, although some charges of hate speech were included in the case against Hamza, the main charges he was found guilty of were inciting violence.
Indeed. I'm delighted you agree "free speech" isn't an absolute.
Unfortunately the Americans in Rwanda didn't agree with you:
As the genocide was taking place, the United States military drafted a plan to jam RTLM's broadcasts, but this action was never taken, with officials claiming that the cost of the operation, international broadcast agreements and "the American commitment to free speech" made the operation unfeasible.
We are not talking about the Americans. They have many laws that do not fit into the UK culture. But again it is a Straw Man argument. Both RdMC and Hamza would be proscribed in UK law under incitement laws. There is no need for additional hate speech laws. It is a dangerous and unecessary development which is being abused by people and the authorities to prevent what should be lawful discourse.
Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.
I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.
There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.
Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.
I may be completely wrong of course.
Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.
The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.
The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
You would expect views expressed at a adult comedy club to be somewhat hokey. I doubt Joanna Cherry's are at all out of line in that context. The curious thing is why the comedy club invited her in the first place. Is she likely to make anyone laugh? I mean, why not sign up Keir Starmer? It's the way he tells them ...
It was a part of a series by various political thinkers of various different hues, as I understand it. The program was not offered by the Stand itself, they just provided the venue, but by a company which puts on a lot of different fringe events.
That is made explicit at the very start of the judgment which Cyclefree linked upthread.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A straw man argument. RdMC openly advocated violence and genocide against the Tutsis. As did Abu Hamza. Both of these would be covered by laws against inciting violence. Indeed, although some charges of hate speech were included in the case against Hamza, the main charges he was found guilty of were inciting violence.
Indeed. I'm delighted you agree "free speech" isn't an absolute.
Unfortunately the Americans in Rwanda didn't agree with you:
As the genocide was taking place, the United States military drafted a plan to jam RTLM's broadcasts, but this action was never taken, with officials claiming that the cost of the operation, international broadcast agreements and "the American commitment to free speech" made the operation unfeasible.
We are not talking about the Americans. They have many laws that do not fit into the UK culture. But again it is a Straw Man argument. Both RdMC and Hamza would be proscribed in UK law under incitement laws. There is no need for additional hate speech laws. It is a dangerous and unecessary development which is being abused by people and the authorities to prevent what should be lawful discourse.
Sure. I'm not going to disagree with that at all. But the final para of Cyclefree's post was free speech absolutism, untethered from Scottish (or E&W) law, and with a very American-sounding appeal to "arguing for freedom". That's what I take issue with.
It is pretty much a racing certainty that those applauding The Stand for its initial cancellation and deploring its climb-down would be outraged at the same thing happening to someone whose views they agreed with.
That is very far indeed from certain. What you're doing here is taking a hypothetical hypocrisy, pretending it's nearly universal, and then putting yourself above it. It's the worst kind of straw-man slaying.
I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. It is a bit like football fans complaining about refereeing decisions when they go against their team but welcoming them when they go in their favour.
Which does go on, yes. But it's far from everyone.
I just don't think we should pretend that the noisy hypocrites are somehow universal or representative. Many people have principles that mean they will criticise their own side when merited. And -- shock horror -- there are even some people who don't feel they have a side and who will weigh in on matters of principle such as this or that speech should be protected, or that foul was definitely inside the box, even though they don't support either team involved.
Don't take examples of bad behaviour and then pretend that everyone is like that.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
And what if someone got into power and decided to include the rich, or businessmen or the State of Israel amongst things you are not allowed to criticise? Free speech is not just important because it is some 'absolutist good' as you put it but because once you open the door to banning criticism or scorn for one section of society (no matter how stupid or wrong that criticism might be) then it can be taken as an excuse to ban other criticism as well.
What happens when politicians decide that criticising politicians is hate speech?
Racists are stupid and ignorant. But as long as they do not actually advocate violence or damage to others they should be allowed to be stupid and ignorant.
I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this. You can frame and police a consensus position that enshrines free speech but stops short of saying anything and everything is ok. I think we've done that reasonably well here. Ok, so it sounds like you'd adjust the dial if it were purely up to you but us arguing about free speech is a necessary and healthy part of having it. And we do have it. People who think we don't would soon change their minds imo if they went to live in a place that really doesn't.
Disappointing result in Turkey. A 2nd round was always likely, but there was hope that Erdoğan would at least be behind in the first round. I'm surprised that the results show voters in Germany giving exactly the same vote share to Erdoğan as in 2018 (65% of the vote with 79% of ballot boxes opened), as the mood music around here (where there are a lot of Turks) has definitely moved against Erdoğan over the last 5 years among the people I talk to.
I’ve traveled quite widely in Turkey, and quite recently
The plain fact is, Erdogan remains seriously popular with a lot of people, and not just religious conservatives
In his 20 year reign, many Turks have gone from outright poverty to a decent middle class life
Disappointing result in Turkey. A 2nd round was always likely, but there was hope that Erdoğan would at least be behind in the first round. I'm surprised that the results show voters in Germany giving exactly the same vote share to Erdoğan as in 2018 (65% of the vote with 79% of ballot boxes opened), as the mood music around here (where there are a lot of Turks) has definitely moved against Erdoğan over the last 5 years among the people I talk to.
I’ve traveled quite widely in Turkey, and quite recently
The plain fact is, Erdogan remains seriously popular with a lot of people, and not just religious conservatives
In his 20 year reign, many Turks have gone from outright poverty to a decent middle class life
That may be true over 20 years, but things have gone badly more recently. And maybe an economist can help me out here, but doesn't the PPP figure depend on Turkey providing accurate figures for the prices of things? And there is some doubt about their inflation figures. GDP per capita in USD peaked in 2013.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
From your link: "She cited a recent six-month trial by 61 companies that found revenue increased along with staff wellbeing when they tried out the four-day week."
Many private sector shift workers already work three or four day weeks but with more than eight hours in a day. I do not think that is what is advocated here but details are scarce.
Yes. The private sector trials have universally been doing 40 hours (or whatever the working week is) in 4 days.
The reason people like it, is that they see the working day as “taking up” the day already. A couple more hours doesn’t make much odds compared to a long weekend every week
Suella has differentials. And elections like this are about those differentials, she mops up members and MPs both for what her positions are and her thatcher-like characteristics of clarity, steadfast, tenacious, looking like she can deliver, leaves the others competing in same pool of votes to be in top two with her.
Stopping the boats is explicitly her gig, and she can't get it done
If Rishi was smart he would sack her for this failure
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
Both merit judgement. Words can do as much good as actions, and as much harm. It all depends.
The irony of an article ostensibly defending freedom of speech and abhorring discrimination seeking to delegitimise the suffix '-phobic' and shut down the use of other linguistic tools available to those with the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy of the oppressed majority is beyond rich.
If transphobic bigots don't want to be called transphobic bigots, they shouldn't act like transphobic bigots.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A silly comment because inciting violence has always been an accepted exception to free speech and there is nothing on my header which says or suggests that I think otherwise.
Saying something that X disagrees with is not the same as inciting violence against X.
Oh good. We now have "accepted exceptions to free speech".
Can you clarify how you square this with decrying "Free speech for me but not for thee... And what will you say then, the laws and conventions to protect you having been cut down by you in your zeal to enforce your views on others?"? Because the two sound exactly the same to me.
Surely the exceptions to free speech are based on the type of speech rather than who is making it.
So either everyone is allowed to say a particular thing or nobody is. I'm surprised you can't see this, it's pretty obvious.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
A silly comment because inciting violence has always been an accepted exception to free speech and there is nothing on my header which says or suggests that I think otherwise.
Saying something that X disagrees with is not the same as inciting violence against X.
Oh good. We now have "accepted exceptions to free speech".
Can you clarify how you square this with decrying "Free speech for me but not for thee... And what will you say then, the laws and conventions to protect you having been cut down by you in your zeal to enforce your views on others?"? Because the two sound exactly the same to me.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.
I am not suggesting Barclay is fit for leadership, just that Tories may well pick him. His role at Health is to balance the books by breaking the staff unions, then to blame staff for the pisspoor quality of the service. This tickles the erogenous zones of the turnip taliban.
I would never apply such a vile slur to your good self!
Suella has differentials. And elections like this are about those differentials, she mops up members and MPs both for what her positions are and her thatcher-like characteristics of clarity, steadfast, tenacious, looking like she can deliver, leaves the others competing in same pool of votes to be in top two with her.
Stopping the boats is explicitly her gig, and she can't get it done
If Rishi was smart he would sack her for this failure
Perhaps the boat people could be asked to operate a ferry service to the Scottish Islands.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Given the existence of email and working from home, the problem is not a five-day week, it's a seven-day week...
Not for me it isn’t. Friday 1PM I’m logging off and Monday 7.30 I’m back on.
I'm on holiday today because I have to drain-off unused holiday (you can only carry over a certain amount). I'm still working...
I am sat by the pool in Kefalonia worrying about the shed full of work I left undone last Tuesday when I left Blighty. I brought my diary and have been making appointments and answering emails through the week, but that already late work won't have done itself.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The irony of an article ostensibly defending freedom of speech and abhorring discrimination seeking to delegitimise the suffix '-phobic' and shut down the use of other linguistic tools available to those with the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy of the oppressed majority is beyond rich.
If transphobic bigots don't want to be called transphobic bigots, they shouldn't act like transphobic bigots.
Yes, that was one of the weaker parts of the piece.
The whole wretched episode also introduced us to the suffix “phobic”, which could be handily attached to whatever belief or category of people needed to be rendered beyond challenge...
The suffix 'phobic' is rather more familiar, and has a much longer history than that bit of hyperbole suggests.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Given the existence of email and working from home, the problem is not a five-day week, it's a seven-day week...
Not for me it isn’t. Friday 1PM I’m logging off and Monday 7.30 I’m back on.
I'm on holiday today because I have to drain-off unused holiday (you can only carry over a certain amount). I'm still working...
I am sat by the pool in Kefalonia worrying about the shed full of work I left undone last Tuesday when I left Blighty. I brought my diary and have been making appointments and answering emails through the week, but that already late work won't have done itself.
You people need to learn to switch off. You sound like addicts.
Suella has differentials. And elections like this are about those differentials, she mops up members and MPs both for what her positions are and her thatcher-like characteristics of clarity, steadfast, tenacious, looking like she can deliver, leaves the others competing in same pool of votes to be in top two with her.
Stopping the boats is explicitly her gig, and she can't get it done
If Rishi was smart he would sack her for this failure
IDEA!
Hire the SNP ministers responsible for the ferries to supply transport to the U.K. for the boat people.
Hire the people smugglers to provide a Scottish ferry service.
The irony of an article ostensibly defending freedom of speech and abhorring discrimination seeking to delegitimise the suffix '-phobic' and shut down the use of other linguistic tools available to those with the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy of the oppressed majority is beyond rich.
If transphobic bigots don't want to be called transphobic bigots, they shouldn't act like transphobic bigots.
No, no and no. Cyclefree never suggests that someone's expression of opinion should be not allowed. You are confusing robust discussion with silencing.
Those who support an objective free speech position have an additional hurdle to overcome. They can be attacked by their opponents who want to silence traditional liberal opinion and will try to do so, while traditional liberals do not want to silence their critics.
Suella has differentials. And elections like this are about those differentials, she mops up members and MPs both for what her positions are and her thatcher-like characteristics of clarity, steadfast, tenacious, looking like she can deliver, leaves the others competing in same pool of votes to be in top two with her.
Stopping the boats is explicitly her gig, and she can't get it done
If Rishi was smart he would sack her for this failure
But everyone else will also fail to stop the boats so it's best to keep a single fall guy in place.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
Thanks. That's interesting. The opinion seems to lean very heavily on a single Employment Tribunal judgment to support a list of assertions about case law having established that various beliefs about gender are "philosophical beliefs", and therefore protected under the Equality Act.
It seems a rather crucial point, and I wonder why only a single judgment is cited in support of it, in an opinion running to 52 pages.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
And what if someone got into power and decided to include the rich, or businessmen or the State of Israel amongst things you are not allowed to criticise? Free speech is not just important because it is some 'absolutist good' as you put it but because once you open the door to banning criticism or scorn for one section of society (no matter how stupid or wrong that criticism might be) then it can be taken as an excuse to ban other criticism as well.
What happens when politicians decide that criticising politicians is hate speech?
Racists are stupid and ignorant. But as long as they do not actually advocate violence or damage to others they should be allowed to be stupid and ignorant.
I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this. You can frame and police a consensus position that enshrines free speech but stops short of saying anything and everything is ok. I think we've done that reasonably well here. Ok, so it sounds like you'd adjust the dial if it were purely up to you but us arguing about free speech is a necessary and healthy part of having it. And we do have it. People who think we don't would soon change their minds imo if they went to live in a place that really doesn't.
Actually we don't have it. You only think we do because you are allowed to say and write what you believe but you don't extend that freedom to others who you deeply disagree with or find objectionable. That is not free speech.
And I have lived and worked in many places that don't have it which is why I understand the slippery slope argument far better than you do.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
Part of Cherry’s perpetual schtick is that she’s being silenced and cancelled, so this was manna from heaven. Like so many of the ‘silenced’ she always seems to find multiple platforms to tell everyone about her cancellation hell.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Given the existence of email and working from home, the problem is not a five-day week, it's a seven-day week...
Not for me it isn’t. Friday 1PM I’m logging off and Monday 7.30 I’m back on.
I'm on holiday today because I have to drain-off unused holiday (you can only carry over a certain amount). I'm still working...
I am sat by the pool in Kefalonia worrying about the shed full of work I left undone last Tuesday when I left Blighty. I brought my diary and have been making appointments and answering emails through the week, but that already late work won't have done itself.
You people need to learn to switch off. You sound like addicts.
Thanks to @Cyclefree for the article, which I read with some interest. I am saddened but not surprised that after an article extolling the virtue of free speech, the comments section (with some creditable exceptions) promptly filled with people listing what they consider to be exceptions. My view on this is wearily pragmatic: free speech does not exist in the UK and the only task of the statistician is to measure it - if we are going to oppress speech then at least let's be honest about what is and is not oppressed. I would prefer the US method - see these [here][here] for examples - but we don't live there, do we.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Given the existence of email and working from home, the problem is not a five-day week, it's a seven-day week...
Not for me it isn’t. Friday 1PM I’m logging off and Monday 7.30 I’m back on.
I'm on holiday today because I have to drain-off unused holiday (you can only carry over a certain amount). I'm still working...
I am sat by the pool in Kefalonia worrying about the shed full of work I left undone last Tuesday when I left Blighty. I brought my diary and have been making appointments and answering emails through the week, but that already late work won't have done itself.
You people need to learn to switch off. You sound like addicts.
Or Self-employed.
My wife is self-employed. When she's on holiday, she doesn't work. It can be done.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
Part of Cherry’s perpetual schtick is that she’s being silenced and cancelled, so this was manna from heaven. Like so many of the ‘silenced’ she always seems to find multiple platforms to tell everyone about her cancellation hell.
Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, it's hard to imagine that, had she wanted to, JC couldn't have found an alternative venue.
I'm not saying that she should have had to, but she certainly could have. Whatever was done to her, it wasn't being silenced.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
Nothing in Cyclefree's article suggests that she is in favour of making it lawful to incite murder.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That QT occurred in 2009. Genuine question: would it be allowed now in 2023?
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
They are entitled to that view. As am I to think it nonsense.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
Part of Cherry’s perpetual schtick is that she’s being silenced and cancelled, so this was manna from heaven. Like so many of the ‘silenced’ she always seems to find multiple platforms to tell everyone about her cancellation hell.
Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, it's hard to imagine that, had she wanted to, JC couldn't have found an alternative venue.
I'm not saying that she should have had to, but she certainly could have. Whatever was done to her, it wasn't being silenced.
I'm fine with their bringing the case, given the circumstances - and she was justified in feeling aggrieved. The subsequent posturing is less commendable.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
They are entitled to that view. As am I to think it nonsense.
And she does consider herself to be rather entitled.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
To my mind, the test is whether the speaker is, or is not, inciting the commission of a crime. Abu Hamza incited acts of terrorism.
There are plenty of reasonable limits that can be placed on free speech (such as protection of a professional obligation of confidentiality, protection of witnesses and informants, protection of minors, official secrets, libel etc.) but the onus should be on those limiting speech to justify those limitations.
Protecting people from offence is certainly not a justification for prohibiting speech.
As ever, it's a question of where you draw the line (see also the US Supreme Court's landmark judgments on free speech).
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Cherry & co seem to feel it’s pretty landmarky.
Part of Cherry’s perpetual schtick is that she’s being silenced and cancelled, so this was manna from heaven. Like so many of the ‘silenced’ she always seems to find multiple platforms to tell everyone about her cancellation hell.
Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, it's hard to imagine that, had she wanted to, JC couldn't have found an alternative venue.
I'm not saying that she should have had to, but she certainly could have. Whatever was done to her, it wasn't being silenced.
There’s a whole strand of public discourse that much prefers an event be banned/pilloried/picketed than take place, it’s a facet of the need for attention culture. And of course it works, minor politician going on and on about their world view yet again doesn’t sound like a box office smasher but Cherry’s next event will probably be a sell out.
Republic doubling their membership (I think) after the Coronation arrests fiasco has a similar vibe, though I don’t think they initially wanted it to turn out that way.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
Thanks to @Cyclefree for the article, which I read with some interest. I am saddened but not surprised that after an article extolling the virtue of free speech, the comments section (with some creditable exceptions) promptly filled with people listing what they consider to be exceptions. My view on this is wearily pragmatic: free speech does not exist in the UK and the only task of the statistician is to measure it - if we are going to oppress speech then at least let's be honest about what is and is not oppressed. I would prefer the US method - see these [here][here] for examples - but we don't live there, do we.
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
That's the lesson the Conservatives have to learn, and the sooner the better.
In general, more mainstream wins General Elections. If party A goes way off the edges to please itself (Corbyn, Hague/IDS/Howard, Kinnock/Foot), party B can go pretty radical and still be the more mainstream of the big two.
It's baffling that the Conservative government have looked at late-era Corbyn Labour (indulging your own obsessions, telling moderates to go way and join the other lot- or words to that effect) and thought "yes, we'll have some of that please".
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
To my mind, the test is whether the speaker is, or is not, inciting the commission of a crime. Abu Hamza incited acts of terrorism.
There are plenty of reasonable limits that can be placed on free speech (such as protection of a professional obligation of confidentiality, protection of witnesses and informants, protection of minors, official secrets, libel etc.) but the onus should be on those limiting speech to justify those limitations.
Protecting people from offence is certainly not a justification for prohibiting speech.
Think that is the line but would clarify it as inciting the commission of serious and violent crime.
Someone advocating shoplifting or not paying TV licenses etc is fine.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I can’t demand that a venue books me, there’s no right to demand a platform.
However, when the order of events is: 1. Person booked to appear 2. Event announced 3. Protests, often threatening violence and disruption, from activist groups and sometimes staff at the venue. 4. Event cancelled
That’s very different.
Imagine if the BBC had caved on the Nick Griffin QT show, having already announced it.
If Joana Cherry had never been booked, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on legally.
Yes, CNN were idiots to run the Trump show last week.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
Yes. The most unilluminating form of journalism. Sadly politicians seem incapable of any other sort of discussion, and the BBC to its discredit seems to encourage it. For most it is pure switch off.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
A very good point Sandpit.
Without your post, if you had simply asked "should the racist Griffin be given the oxygen of publicity on QT?" I would probably said no. But you are right, they should be allowed their say, but when specific comments are total bollocks those comments should be called out as total bollocks.
This is my beef with the BBC. If they run a story about any tangible negative effects of Brexit, they have to bring on Frost, Mogg or Johnson who say everything is fine and dandy. It may be balderdash but the BBC's charter for balance has been met
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
The FCC abolished the 'fairness doctrine' back in the 1980s.
As far as Griffin was concerned, I seriously doubt that the BBC's obligation towards impartiality actually mandated his appearance. But as I said, I regard it as a sensible decision.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
To my mind, the test is whether the speaker is, or is not, inciting the commission of a crime.
Fair enough. Try this
"I think Alex Kurtzmann should be killed. His inability to understand even the basics of the Star Trek franchise has disfigured my life and my life would be immeasurably improved if he was killed and his body fed to sharks pour encourager les autres. I am not a cruel person and do not require the death to be protracted nor painful, but I do honestly want him dead ASAP"
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
To my mind, the test is whether the speaker is, or is not, inciting the commission of a crime. Abu Hamza incited acts of terrorism.
There are plenty of reasonable limits that can be placed on free speech (such as protection of a professional obligation of confidentiality, protection of witnesses and informants, protection of minors, official secrets, libel etc.) but the onus should be on those limiting speech to justify those limitations.
Protecting people from offence is certainly not a justification for prohibiting speech.
Something which one might expect the operators of a comedy club, of all places, to understand.
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
That's the lesson the Conservatives have to learn, and the sooner the better.
In general, more mainstream wins General Elections. If party A goes way off the edges to please itself (Corbyn, Hague/IDS/Howard, Kinnock/Foot), party B can go pretty radical and still be the more mainstream of the big two.
It's baffling that the Conservative government have looked at late-era Corbyn Labour (indulging your own obsessions, telling moderates to go way and join the other lot- or words to that effect) and thought "yes, we'll have some of that please".
Did Kinnock act as a moderating influence against the radical left?
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
Ed Davey could appear new but fresh is pushing it.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.
It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.
Done that myself - or at least as part of a party - commissioned a trip going from Eigg to avoid bad weather the next day and the likelihood of the scheduled ferry being cancelled (that was in the days when the island didn't have a ferry-capable pier and one had to use a flitboat to get on/off shore, so it was more sensitive to weather than otherwise).
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
Didn’t Emily Maitliss give the example of any debate on the financial implications of Brexit that they could find several dozen reputable economists in 5 minutes to make the negative case while it would take hours to find a vaguely credible one to make the opposite case? The cynic in me thinks that finding the most shouty, ideological ones on either side would also be a requirement.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
In the latter case, already a SNP policy as well, and implemented where it falls under SG powers, so if Mr Osborne and Labour are also in favour, you are right!
Comments
1. Expand Barra airport (easy, just dump some more sand
2. Causeways from Barra-Uists-H&L (can be based on scuttled CalMac feries, if they can get them out that far)
3. Fleet of autonomous electric vehicles for tourists, with in road charging (also makes the passing places run as smoothly as when it's just two islanders; the autonomous vehicles time passing perfectly, as they do)
4. Install tidal turbines in the causeways, to power the above
5. Suitable mitigations for storm surges/floods caused by causeways
6. Profit - lots of high skill jobs for islanders implementing these insane ideas
And here is The Stand's response - https://www.thestand.co.uk/statement/may-12-legal-letter. Their public statement can be found on their website.
In relation to what counts as a "protected belief" under the EA, the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson sets out the tests.
What is often misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, is that -
(1) what English or Scottish law says on the topic is subject to the principles set out in Articles 9 & 10 of the ECHR; and
(2) you cannot act in favour of one group with a protected characteristic in such a way as to discriminate, whether directly or indirectly, against another group with a protected characteristic. This latter point is often overlooked.
This short thread from Professor Foran, a professor of public law at Glasgow University sets this out well. https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1657792772760379394?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA
It is this failure which often leads to the problems which some institutions have got themselves into. They behave as if there is a hierarchy of rights when there isn't.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJHbarVy/?t=1
Customer claims he lost almost £300,000 over three years
...
Aside from his Christmas Eve betting spree, he was able to place more than 30 bets per day on 33 different occasions.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/14/bet365-high-court-responsible-gambling/ (£££)
or non-paywalled via MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/bet365-in-high-court-battle-over-customer-who-gambled-162-times-on-christmas-eve/ar-AA1ba9yT
At a lower level, I'm sure many have placed more than 30 bets a day; a yankee is 11 bets so three of those on a busy weekend will see you clear that threshold. It does not necessarily indicate loss of control.
Lesson 1 in how to confuse data analysts.
I've only been to see comedy acts there, though. Not sure I would want to go listen to politicians (of any stripe) there.
Saying something that X disagrees with is not the same as inciting violence against X.
Unfortunately the Americans in Rwanda didn't agree with you:
Have a good day all.
https://www.economist.com/drones-pod
"How Ukrainian drones could change the way wars are fought everywhere
Our podcast on science and technology. As more unmanned vehicles take to the skies—many of them engineered by civilians—we explore how the technology is changing warfare"
Can you clarify how you square this with decrying "Free speech for me but not for thee... And what will you say then, the laws and conventions to protect you having been cut down by you in your zeal to enforce your views on others?"? Because the two sound exactly the same to me.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-buys-3-8m-oxfordshire-mansion-with-3-sided-moat-tmb5lncct (£££)
Handy for Uxbridge! Wonder if there's a duck house.
ETA: Unless the moat describes a triangle, I guess...
I just don't think we should pretend that the noisy hypocrites are somehow universal or representative. Many people have principles that mean they will criticise their own side when merited. And -- shock horror -- there are even some people who don't feel they have a side and who will weigh in on matters of principle such as this or that speech should be protected, or that foul was definitely inside the box, even though they don't support either team involved.
Don't take examples of bad behaviour and then pretend that everyone is like that.
https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2023/05/12/a-rum-do-island-trust-defends-ministers-ferry-hire/
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=TR That may be true over 20 years, but things have gone badly more recently. And maybe an economist can help me out here, but doesn't the PPP figure depend on Turkey providing accurate figures for the prices of things? And there is some doubt about their inflation figures. GDP per capita in USD peaked in 2013.
The reason people like it, is that they see the working day as “taking up” the day already. A couple more hours doesn’t make much odds compared to a long weekend every week
If Rishi was smart he would sack her for this failure
If transphobic bigots don't want to be called transphobic bigots, they shouldn't act like transphobic bigots.
So either everyone is allowed to say a particular thing or nobody is. I'm surprised you can't see this, it's pretty obvious.
I don't think this case is a particularly controversial one - or certainly ought not to be so. The Strand on this occasion were offering a venue for hire, and as a result of what was effectively industrial action by their staff, tried to resile from their contract.
It's no kind of landmark case (IMO), and while I mostly agree with Cyclefree's sentiments, I think she's drawing over extensive conclusions from it,
Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live
The whole wretched episode also introduced us to the suffix “phobic”, which could be handily attached to whatever belief or category of people needed to be rendered beyond challenge...
The suffix 'phobic' is rather more familiar, and has a much longer history than that bit of hyperbole suggests.
Hire the SNP ministers responsible for the ferries to supply transport to the U.K. for the boat people.
Hire the people smugglers to provide a Scottish ferry service.
Those who support an objective free speech position have an additional hurdle to overcome. They can be attacked by their opponents who want to silence traditional liberal opinion and will try to do so, while traditional liberals do not want to silence their critics.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
It seems a rather crucial point, and I wonder why only a single judgment is cited in support of it, in an opinion running to 52 pages.
And I have lived and worked in many places that don't have it which is why I understand the slippery slope argument far better than you do.
Part of Cherry’s perpetual schtick is that she’s being silenced and cancelled, so this was manna from heaven. Like so many of the ‘silenced’ she always seems to find multiple platforms to tell everyone about her cancellation hell.
I'm not saying that she should have had to, but she certainly could have. Whatever was done to her, it wasn't being silenced.
"A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though.
Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
As am I to think it nonsense.
The subsequent posturing is less commendable.
There are plenty of reasonable limits that can be placed on free speech (such as protection of a professional obligation of confidentiality, protection of witnesses and informants, protection of minors, official secrets, libel etc.) but the onus should be on those limiting speech to justify those limitations.
Protecting people from offence is certainly not a justification for prohibiting speech.
Republic doubling their membership (I think) after the Coronation arrests fiasco has a similar vibe, though I don’t think they initially wanted it to turn out that way.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.
In general, more mainstream wins General Elections. If party A goes way off the edges to please itself (Corbyn, Hague/IDS/Howard, Kinnock/Foot), party B can go pretty radical and still be the more mainstream of the big two.
It's baffling that the Conservative government have looked at late-era Corbyn Labour (indulging your own obsessions, telling moderates to go way and join the other lot- or words to that effect) and thought "yes, we'll have some of that please".
Someone advocating shoplifting or not paying TV licenses etc is fine.
However, when the order of events is:
1. Person booked to appear
2. Event announced
3. Protests, often threatening violence and disruption, from activist groups and sometimes staff at the venue.
4. Event cancelled
That’s very different.
Imagine if the BBC had caved on the Nick Griffin QT show, having already announced it.
If Joana Cherry had never been booked, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on legally.
Yes, CNN were idiots to run the Trump show last week.
https://www.ft.com/content/9e356658-b0bd-4c48-8b21-cdaa79983707
Without your post, if you had simply asked "should the racist Griffin be given the oxygen of publicity on QT?" I would probably said no. But you are right, they should be allowed their say, but when specific comments are total bollocks those comments should be called out as total bollocks.
This is my beef with the BBC. If they run a story about any tangible negative effects of Brexit, they have to bring on Frost, Mogg or Johnson who say everything is fine and dandy. It may be balderdash but the BBC's charter for balance has been met
As far as Griffin was concerned, I seriously doubt that the BBC's obligation towards impartiality actually mandated his appearance. But as I said, I regard it as a sensible decision.
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
"I think Alex Kurtzmann should be killed. His inability to understand even the basics of the Star Trek franchise has disfigured my life and my life would be immeasurably improved if he was killed and his body fed to sharks pour encourager les autres. I am not a cruel person and do not require the death to be protracted nor painful, but I do honestly want him dead ASAP"
So do I get arrested now?
Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.
This evening, with President Zelensky, we took stock of Ukraine's operational needs to face Russia's aggression.
France will continue to provide political, financial, humanitarian and military support to the Ukrainians as long as it takes.
Thus, in the coming weeks, we will train and equip several Ukrainian battalions with tens of armoured vehicles and light tanks.
To help protect its population against Russian strikes, France is focusing its efforts on Ukraine's air defence capabilities.
To strengthen Ukraine's ability to prosecute war crimes, we have sent two mobile DNA laboratories to the field. This assistance will continue to grow.
There must be no impunity.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1657895215267446784
Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !
@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.