(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Offering easy access to required medicine is not a celebration.
Compounding a tragedy by making it harder to get easy access to medicine you need, in your time of need, is just performative cruelty.
I agree. As I have said I do not agree that anyone has the right to determine what someone else does with their own body. Including me.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
Syed is one of the few interesting columnists out there who you don't know for certain what side he will take on every issue and that it often involves some nuance.
Strange, I find him fairly predictable fare, with a regular side of 'Britain's best ping pong player for 15 mins'. Chacun à son goût.
The stick £5k in an ISA for young people is a bit of a rehash of Brown's policy were every kid got a few £100 stuck in an ISA for them at birth and parents could top it up. It never really got the desired effect of mass participation in getting people to keep putting relatively small amounts away for their kids for 18 years and seeing the effects of compound interest. Most people just forgot about it and at 18 their kids got a statement saying its now worth £599 or something and they went out on the lash with it.
On the face of it it wasn't a terrible idea, nudge people with some free government cash, don't outside of the rich / well informed, it didn't garner mass buy-in.
Matched funds might be a better idea. Hey parents and grandparents, put £50 a month away for the baby under 5 and the government will match it. But cap it at £50 a month, don’t let the upper middle classes put away £1k a month.
You could do pensions like that instead of tax relief. Match fund the contribution up to a cap. Cap tapering down over time as retirement approaches.
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Offering easy access to required medicine is not a celebration.
Compounding a tragedy by making it harder to get easy access to medicine you need, in your time of need, is just performative cruelty.
Mobile clinics offering charitable health care are not uncommon in the US.
Makes me wonder how much trade would appear in the U.K. for such…
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
As a matter of interest it is worth reading the sentencing remarks of the judge in the 'just stop oil' case as it is often cited in comparison with the current round of sentencing.
The participants got 4 years in jail rising to 5 for the leader. There was however intent to cause significant disruption, no guilty pleas, no mitigation, and concern about how they had conducted themselves in the trial. Also, those involved had previous convictions, in all but one case, they had multiple convictions connected to direct action protest.
This appears to indicate to a determination to use imprisonment as a way to manage protest, consistent with the 'far right' protests, but it is notable in the Just Stop Oil cases, the fate of imprisonment seems to have been reserved for repeat offenders.
But you aren't really comparing like with like.
Two major aggravating factors with the racist riots is the violence and racism therein.
Almost all the JSO offenders given jail sentences had already been previously let off with suspended sentences but broken them. The rioters however were nearly all sent to jail straight away without passing go even after pleading guilty and if they showed some remorse given the damage they caused. Fair enough on both counts one would think
All the reporting of jailed protestors so far seem to have a series of past offences too.
It seems to be the usual criminal suspects who've engaged in criminality and found out that this time the Plod and courts were interested.
Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
This woman was jailed and had never had a previous conviction for example
Murder doesn't require prior convictions to be taken seriously.
I find such a defence by posters like HY (and he is not alone) abominable.
When defenders of people like this woman also claim to live their lives on strict Christian moral codes the hypocrisy stinks.
Our legal system punishes those who reoffend and have previous convictions more than those who don't for all offences, it is in the Sentencing Guidelines to judges and Magistrates. The Bible as far as I am aware does not mention reoffending rates or breaching suspended sentences, though Jesus encourages repentance
From my angle, I suggest that the idea of rehabilitation and change of behaviour are implicit and fundamental in Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. These are basic to repentance, which is meaningless without changed behaviour. That is I think what we have lost in the definition - we have split repentance (the word), from repentance (the continuing deed).
For a specific, consider the story of tax collector / con-man Zaccheus - after repentance, Zaccheus goes home and returns the money he has skimmed off the top of the pile to the people he stole it from, fourfold. *
Or consider the metanoia (roughly - "turn around") in the account of the behaviour of the Apostle Paul, and what came after.
I'd slot the ideas being brought forward by James Timpson in as a contemporary version of that philosophy suitable for a large scales system, measured by reoffending rates etc. And the programmes which will I think be coming along are about institutionalising changed behaviour for individuals, by both learning and change of social environment.
I'd say an over emphasis on punishment only, especially punishment that removes hope for the offender is - in Christian terms - a heresy. Noisy "hang 'em and flog 'em" arguments devoid of the possibility of rehabilitation. as we find in some newspapers and types of politics, seem to me to be reflective of a more modern culture drifting from its ethical roots.
On the other side, I'm not sure that anyone could claim to "live their life on a strict Christian moral code", they could claim to aspire to do so, but the foundation is that everyone falls short and acknowledges it. There are degrees of emphasis on different aspects - eg the Holiness movement in the late 19C or some Calvinist traditions would focus on particular behaviour 'as evidence of salvation' - but the basics are the same across the piece.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
He is obsessed with image, and the concept of beauty. Ironic for a man that paid a pornstar...
Yesterday:
"I say that I am much better looking. I'm a better looking person than Kamala"
Keep 'em coming Donald, you're nailing it!
That's a bit TDS of our American Dem friends imo, attacking Trump for what is clearly a joke. God knows there's more than enough proper material to work with.
I wonder also if, as Trump looks older and more shambolic, hoist by his own petard after years of rolling the pitch for Biden is senile, Republicans will lose further support as the likelihood of handing over mid-term to President JD Vance looms.
Doesn't actually look like a joke to me if you look at that whole section of his speech. Either way, the more time Trump spends on ranting about her appearance, her crazy ugly laugh and her mixed ancestry the better it is for Harris, whether you think these are examples of "comedy" or of Trump being a rambling fruitloop.
The argument over what he meant by it is not really relevant. What matters is that he still gets applause from his crowds for all of the bullshit. Which will keep him just talking to the faithful like that. It's a turnoff for everyone else. Which is part of why he's going to lose.
It's his biggest problem. He can't widen his appeal because he has to be himself. I remember being worried when Covid came along because I figured all he had to do was respond in a sane and empathetic manner to that crisis and he'd get reelected. But no, it was beyond him. Instead we got denialism then xenophobic ranting then those bizarre "injecting bleach" daily pressers and all of that. Bye bye 2020 election.
Shes been invited to my constituency and not responded, shame as I was all in her for her to win. She is pure Corbyn for the membership, hopefully she isn't like that for the rest of the population though. If she's in the final two she will win hands down.
If she were to win the leadership, pretty sure Badenoch would be relatively happy with 2019 Corbyn GE numbers, let alone those of 2017 Corbyn.
Yes, let us not forget hard left Corbyn was a mere 28 further seat gains from the Tories in 2017 from winning most seats and likely becoming PM.
Thatcher in 1975 was considered unelectable and hard right but still won in 1979. Just because you are not centrist, if you lead the main opposition party to an unpopular government it does not mean you cannot win most seats or even a majority in a general election under FPTP
If Sunny Jim had called the election before the Winter of Discontent he MIGHT have hung on. The "Wets" would have rebelled and Pym or Hezza would have been PM in 1984. It would have been better for the long term health of the Conservative Party. They would not have spent the last 45 years chasing Thatcher and the ghost of Thatcher.
We would still be in the EU, there would have been no deregulation and privatisation, there would be no single market (the Thatcherisation of a continent), we wouldnt have had the globalisation we have witnessed over the last forty years.
I don't think we could have avoided globalisation.
He is obsessed with image, and the concept of beauty. Ironic for a man that paid a pornstar...
Yesterday:
"I say that I am much better looking. I'm a better looking person than Kamala"
Keep 'em coming Donald, you're nailing it!
That's a bit TDS of our American Dem friends imo, attacking Trump for what is clearly a joke. God knows there's more than enough proper material to work with.
I wonder also if, as Trump looks older and more shambolic, hoist by his own petard after years of rolling the pitch for Biden is senile, Republicans will lose further support as the likelihood of handing over mid-term to President JD Vance looms.
Its not clearly a joke, the man is obsessed and rants, he seems like he means it.
I was referring to the better looking than Kamala claim.
Given that he's been going on for years about how "handsome" he is, I think he genuinely believes he is better-looking than everyone else.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Under the Every Now And Then Free Speech Act of 2025, your comment above is deemed improper speech.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
Some inadvertent duplication there, or was my black pudding and egg roll for lunch heavier on the alertness than usual?
He is obsessed with image, and the concept of beauty. Ironic for a man that paid a pornstar...
Yesterday:
"I say that I am much better looking. I'm a better looking person than Kamala"
Keep 'em coming Donald, you're nailing it!
That's a bit TDS of our American Dem friends imo, attacking Trump for what is clearly a joke. God knows there's more than enough proper material to work with.
I wonder also if, as Trump looks older and more shambolic, hoist by his own petard after years of rolling the pitch for Biden is senile, Republicans will lose further support as the likelihood of handing over mid-term to President JD Vance looms.
Its not clearly a joke, the man is obsessed and rants, he seems like he means it.
I was referring to the better looking than Kamala claim.
Given that he's been going on for years about how "handsome" he is, I think he genuinely believes he is better-looking than everyone else.
Trump was a handsome guy as a young man but now looks like you'd expect of someone who's lived on burgers for the last sixty years. Harris is good looking, certainly for a politician.
He is obsessed with image, and the concept of beauty. Ironic for a man that paid a pornstar...
Yesterday:
"I say that I am much better looking. I'm a better looking person than Kamala"
Keep 'em coming Donald, you're nailing it!
That's a bit TDS of our American Dem friends imo, attacking Trump for what is clearly a joke. God knows there's more than enough proper material to work with.
I wonder also if, as Trump looks older and more shambolic, hoist by his own petard after years of rolling the pitch for Biden is senile, Republicans will lose further support as the likelihood of handing over mid-term to President JD Vance looms.
Its not clearly a joke, the man is obsessed and rants, he seems like he means it.
I was referring to the better looking than Kamala claim.
Given that he's been going on for years about how "handsome" he is, I think he genuinely believes he is better-looking than everyone else.
Possibly he's got the wrong idea about why so many good-looking young women are willing to have sex with him.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
Some inadvertent duplication there, or was my black pudding and egg roll for lunch heavier on the alertness than usual?
Wrote the wrong thing on one line.
Of those 4 the one on the lowest real marginal tax rate is Person D.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
On free speech. When someone says that controversial speech doesn’t need protection, I think of a case.
A man went round giving rabble rousing speeches. He incited hate against a minority group in his country. His cause eventually kicked off a real, actual civil war. In many cases his speeches caused murderous violence. To which he responded in kind. Carrying weapons, he personally killed and maimed those who objected to his incitements. He had an affinity for knifes, personally stabbed multiple people and even published a pamphlet advocating carrying knives and fighting with them.
On free speech. When someone says that controversial speech doesn’t need protection, I think of a case.
A man went round giving table rousing speeches. His cause eventually kicked off a real, actual civil war. In many cases his speeches caused murderous violence. To which he responded in kind. Carrying weapons, he personally killed and maimed those who objected to his incitements. He had an affinity for knifes, personally stabbed multiple people and even published a pamphlet advocating carrying knives and fighting with them.
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Who exactly do you think is celebrating abortion?
There are some odd people out there on the fringes. Isnt that what the comments are about, that the abortion bus is almost glorifying what is a sad act that should be legal but comes with a heavy decision?
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
They failed in epic way on their attempt to get into rowing kit.
Yeah, comes down to domain expertise. Bit like 3 words - big problems because he didn’t read up about 200 years of encoding practises (See telegraphic codes).
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Who exactly do you think is celebrating abortion?
There are some odd people out there on the fringes. Isnt that what the comments are about, that the abortion bus is almost glorifying what is a sad act that should be legal but comes with a heavy decision?
No.
Its providing mobile medical care to those who need it.
Its sad that people need mobile medical care in that country, but that's the state of the nation thanks to mendacious evil arseholes who get in the way of safe and legal medical care.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
Having read the whole column ( https://archive.ph/Sbvun ), I think he has a perambulation around his opinion whilst largely avoiding the actual presenting questions.
He writes about ideas, whilst the current important questions are about words inspiring criminal activity ie violence, theft etc, and how even words by individuals with a platform can create a 'permission structure' for such criminality in teh minds of others.
For example, one that needs to be addressed is Elon Musk's promotion of conspiracy theories and racist views, and his actions demonstrating that he thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he likes. He shat on the suggestion from the EU Markets (I think) Commissioner that he was subject to EU Law when publishing material in the EU, and in his dealings with Humza Yousaf he has hinted that he will use material that Yousaf has sent privately but to which Musk has access as he owns twitter.
I think that at some point Musk is going to walk nose-first into a legal lamp post.
AIUI Google tried to buck EU law whilst operating in EU jurisdiction, and are now trying to Appeal a $3bn fine.
Musk has already cost himself something like $40bn in destroying the value of Twitter for which he paid quite a lot of cash. I'm not sure where he is going to end up.
Whenever the Field Marshal posts some old shite from the Telegraph can we have a community note from the moderators highlighting his source is the Telegraph?
When the author is Allister Heath can this community note be highlighted in bold italics please?
Do you work in manufacturing ? Do you face P&Ls which force people out of jobs and businesses to close down ?
I suspect not.
No of course you are right I have spent my entire career as a public sector journeyman with no instincts for balancing books. Oh wait, I've only ever worked in the private sector...
Mind you, no manufacturing experience since 1994.
so youve missed the last 30 years. It's a different environment these days.
I’ve been in manufacturing since 1982 with the exception of a couple of years working at a train depot. It most certainly is a different landscape now. You’re right. Working for a large US corporation at the moment and whatever you do and whatever you achieve or excel at they have to have more. Hold less stock, extend payment terms, bash smaller businesses for price reductions all on the back of slowing sales.
This last year was the worst I can recall.
Agreed. It's toxic.
I try and ignore it as far as possible. They can piss and whistle but the "skills" don't exist out there in the market for the magic fairies they want to see and if they want me to fuck off then, well, I'll fuck off.
I applied for,voluntary redundancy last year. Was rejected. I was told I was too key to the business and it’s plans. Years ago I’d have been complimented but now IDGAF about such platitudes. They’d just find it hard to replace me/divvy up my work onto my colleagues. You’re right, the skills and experience really is not out there. Certainly in numbers.
I’m planning to retire in December and will give them the bare minimum notice.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Who exactly do you think is celebrating abortion?
There are some odd people out there on the fringes. Isnt that what the comments are about, that the abortion bus is almost glorifying what is a sad act that should be legal but comes with a heavy decision?
I think in the context customers are perhaps likely to be those visiting the conference from places where women wanting an abortion, or Doctors wanting to perform an abortion, have been criminalised.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
There is no difference between benefit taper and tax, both mean that you don't keep more of your own wages when you work more.
If you think taxing the rich at a 47% marginal tax rate is putting them off working more, why do you think taxes the poorest at 80% marginal tax rate doesn't disincentivise them from doing over 16 hours?
Considering its the poorest who can most directly and immediately amend their working patterns if that disincentive wasn't there (as they could do extra hours work), it is a foolish and counterproductive real tax rate we should not have.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
They’re using wireless shifters on bikes - why the hell would you ever want to do that? The race teams have mechanics who can change the cables every day if they want to, and could make use of polymer or composite cables if worried about them stretching…
Meanwhile, this old IT guy still puts data cables on desks for laptops to connect.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
Having read the whole column ( https://archive.ph/Sbvun ), I think he has a perambulation around his opinion whilst largely avoiding the actual presenting questions.
He writes about ideas, whilst the current important questions are about words inspiring criminal activity ie violence, theft etc, and how even words by individuals with a platform can create a 'permission structure' for such criminality in teh minds of others.
For example, one that needs to be addressed is Elon Musk's promotion of conspiracy theories and racist views, and his actions demonstrating that he thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he likes. He shat on the suggestion from the EU Markets (I think) Commissioner that he was subject to EU Law when publishing material in the EU, and in his dealings with Humza Yousaf he has hinted that he will use material that Yousaf has sent privately but to which Musk has access as he owns twitter.
I think that at some point Musk is going to walk nose-first into a legal lamp post.
AIUI Google tried to buck EU law whilst operating in EU jurisdiction, and are now trying to Appeal a $3bn fine.
Musk has already cost himself something like $40bn in destroying the value of Twitter for which he paid quite a lot of cash. I'm not sure where he is going to end up.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
Ukraine defending itself from a war Russia started by destroying Nord Stream was perfectly legitimate and successful self-defence which should be applauded.
As much as Russia apologists like the AfD, Schroder and yourself are angered by Ukraine defending herself.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
Shimano have made excellent electronic shifters for years. It was the move to wireless that they got wrong, not the move to electronics.
He is but basically Sunak 2, I expect Rishi will vote for him as Stride was an early supporter and Sunak loyalist. If he goes out Sunak probably backs Tugendhat or Cleverly
It must be a use of the word interesting that I'm unfamiliar with.
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
Ukraine defending itself from a war Russia started by destroying Nord Stream was perfectly legitimate and successful self-defence which should be applauded.
As much as Russia apologists like the AfD, Schroder and yourself are angered by Ukraine defending herself.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
They’re using wireless shifters on bikes - why the hell would you ever want to do that? The race teams have mechanics who can change the cables every day if they want to, and could make use of polymer or composite cables if worried about them stretching…
For pro or am teams, marginal gains? Weight saving maybe, and speed - and perhaps reliability - of shift
For more normal categories of cyclist, perhaps because they want them.
Two genuine things I have seen pointed out.
Firstly for multiple shifts (say if you need to go 4 or 6 cogs across in one jump. Secondly for people who do not have strong fingers or have eg arthritis. Same principle as some disabled people needing pedelecs, on a smaller scale. Thirdly, I can also see a case where cable runs may be complex or awkward, such as a tricycle.
(They’re offering vasectomies for the men too, which now apparently has a waiting list!).
It’s so disheartening to see the American left move from the Clintonian “pro-choice” (safe, legal, and rare), stance of 30 years ago, to the “pro-abortion” (as many as possible, more abortions yay!) stance now taken by many Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. An abortion is a tragedy, not a thing to celebrate. That is my view anyway. But that is not a view that I have any right to impose on anyone else, at least until the foetus is a viable life on its own.
Who exactly do you think is celebrating abortion?
There are some odd people out there on the fringes. Isnt that what the comments are about, that the abortion bus is almost glorifying what is a sad act that should be legal but comes with a heavy decision?
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
Ukraine defending itself from a war Russia started by destroying Nord Stream was perfectly legitimate and successful self-defence which should be applauded.
As much as Russia apologists like the AfD, Schroder and yourself are angered by Ukraine defending herself.
Fuck off you genocide-loving extremist
Is that all you have to distract from the fact you're the one siding with Vladimir Putin and the AfD?
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
They’re using wireless shifters on bikes - why the hell would you ever want to do that? The race teams have mechanics who can change the cables every day if they want to, and could make use of polymer or composite cables if worried about them stretching…
Meanwhile, this old IT guy still puts data cables on desks for laptops to connect.
The reality is the pros are showcasing stuff for the masses. They are all sponsored, and UCI rules say everything used in races has to be available to the public. But electronic has real advantages. It's smoother. Mechanics can be doing other things if they are not replacing cables. You can put a shifter exactly where you want it.
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
Hope the Guardian’s lawyers read that very carefully indeed, before they hit the ‘publish’ button.
I am genuinely shocked she still has a job given the amount of fake news she has written over her obsession with Aaron Banks. "Corrections" every week. Makes BBC Verify look accurate.
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
As ever with CC it's a mixture of some good analysis (she's in the ballpark about 2020), some speculation, some conclusions which are a bit OTT, and some verging on loopiness.
I usually try to put her through the same filters as I would say Isobel Oakeshott from the nutty-mc-nutjob right.
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
Hope the Guardian’s lawyers read that very carefully indeed, before they hit the ‘publish’ button.
I am genuinely shocked she still has a job given the amount of fake news she has written over her obsession with Aaron Banks. "Corrections" every week. Makes BBC Verify look accurate.
I dunno Banks entire defence rests on how effective you think the Electoral Commission is at verifying his activities. ymmv
Keyboard warrior, Wayne O'Rourke, 35, who earned £1,400 a month from his X account is jailed for 3 years after 'instigating' riots with posts - sparking questions for owner Elon Musk over his site's content
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
Shimano have made excellent electronic shifters for years. It was the move to wireless that they got wrong, not the move to electronics.
There is a *world* of difference between 'electronic' (*) down wires and 'electronic' through RF. To do it right, an order of magnitude, if not more, of difference.
(*) Depending on the design, you may not need a great deal of 'electronics' to simply send a gear-change signal down a cable.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
Having read the whole column ( https://archive.ph/Sbvun ), I think he has a perambulation around his opinion whilst largely avoiding the actual presenting questions.
He writes about ideas, whilst the current important questions are about words inspiring criminal activity ie violence, theft etc, and how even words by individuals with a platform can create a 'permission structure' for such criminality in teh minds of others.
For example, one that needs to be addressed is Elon Musk's promotion of conspiracy theories and racist views, and his actions demonstrating that he thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he likes. He shat on the suggestion from the EU Markets (I think) Commissioner that he was subject to EU Law when publishing material in the EU, and in his dealings with Humza Yousaf he has hinted that he will use material that Yousaf has sent privately but to which Musk has access as he owns twitter.
I think that at some point Musk is going to walk nose-first into a legal lamp post.
AIUI Google tried to buck EU law whilst operating in EU jurisdiction, and are now trying to Appeal a $3bn fine.
Musk has already cost himself something like $40bn in destroying the value of Twitter for which he paid quite a lot of cash. I'm not sure where he is going to end up.
Indeed. The basic problem is not that some of Musk (and others') criticisms of Twitter before, online policing of views, and liberal orthodoxy aren't valid. But that he threw the baby out with the bathwater and has included a lot of stuff that wasn't covered by free speech arguments or legislation before in with it.
Even in the US - with the first amendment - you can't incite violence (read 'terrorism' if you want to classify things that way). The EU and the UK have more restrictive laws, spottily applied, but look to be at the end of their tether with Musk.
Meanwhile, it is incredibly daft to turn an online platform that largely relies on advertisers for its income into a 4Chan-style free for all because advertisers don't want their ads to appear alongside Nazis and porn, nor want to appear besides loads of meaningless bot-driven content. You have to choose. Be an outlaw space that attracts its niche crazies, cranks and trolls, or a mainstream one.
Furthermore, by promoting so much demonstrably stupid far right content, he's likely to largely discredit and bury the smarter 'heretics' and heterodox thinkers, because frankly, neither users or governments want to wade through a platform of Elon-fanboys saying "masterful, gambit sir" to him, along with the sewage that comes from all directions now. But especially given its owners' leanings, the far right.
Brilliant article by Matthew Syed today, I recommend everyone to read it.
I normally approve of Matthew Syed, but he severely misrepresents Alastair Campbell by saying that Campbell's called for Douglas Murray to be investigated 'for his views on immigration'. Murray called for the expulsion of Muslims from this country, the sort of thing that happened to the Jews in 1290.
Maybe the line dividing a legitimate topic for discussion from an incitement to violence is on the far side of Murray's comments, that's a debate. But softening what Murray actually said makes it look like very reasonable comments are being criticised and that's dishonest.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
They’re using wireless shifters on bikes - why the hell would you ever want to do that? The race teams have mechanics who can change the cables every day if they want to, and could make use of polymer or composite cables if worried about them stretching…
Meanwhile, this old IT guy still puts data cables on desks for laptops to connect.
Weight, I guess. No cables reduces weight and complexity in trying to have internal cabling going through you expensive carbon-fibre frame.
AIUI electric/electronic gear changes can be useful if you have tribars/aerobars on, as you can have gear changers on the tribars as well as the regular handlebars - which must be very hard to do with regular cables.
Personally I'd prefer to have brakes on the tribars: as I guess I'll be sh**tting myself the first few hundred times I use them. Some of the people today had some really nice (and expensive) machines, and they flew past me.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Yeah, I read about this issue the other day. I fear it's another example of a non-electronics firm doing something with electronics, without realising the potential consequences - or not caring enough to pay engineers who know what they're doing.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
Shimano have made excellent electronic shifters for years. It was the move to wireless that they got wrong, not the move to electronics.
There is a *world* of difference between 'electronic' (*) down wires and 'electronic' through RF. To do it right, an order of magnitude, if not more, of difference.
(*) Depending on the design, you may not need a great deal of 'electronics' to simply send a gear-change signal down a cable.
To start, with it seems they violated basic rules on encrypted channels. A replicated message shouldn’t be valid.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
Bart has read Idiot's Guide and thinks he understands the topic rather than the reality of him talking out of his arse on tax at every opportunity.
If the Government threw money at every state secondary like the last Conservative Government threw money at Katherine Birbelsingh our schools and our children would be at Johnsonian levels of world beating performance.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Most lies are not 'challenging an orthodoxy'. They are just lies.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
What, the billionaire global posterboy for Free Speech will be using his £££ to shut her up, you think?
No idea, I am just suggesting that she has a bit of a track record of needing her lawyers on speed dial after writing unwise and untrue things and probably has a special hotline number to Guardian corrections / retractions department. Aaron Banks was rich, Elon is makes him look like a very poor man and is wildly unpredictable. If he is going to become your new obsession after Banks, CA and Meta, better change a habit of a lifetime and not drop clangers every week.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Most lies are not 'challenging an orthodoxy'. They are just lies.
Nice to find myself in agreement with @BartholomewRoberts about one thing. The only caveat though is that I think there is a difference between 'free speech' and 'freedom to broadcast'. There is a significant difference between the two things.
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
Ukraine defending itself from a war Russia started by destroying Nord Stream was perfectly legitimate and successful self-defence which should be applauded.
As much as Russia apologists like the AfD, Schroder and yourself are angered by Ukraine defending herself.
Fuck off you genocide-loving extremist
Is that all you have to distract from the fact you're the one siding with Vladimir Putin and the AfD?
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
Bart has read Idiot's Guide and thinks he understands the topic rather than the reality of him talking out of his arse on tax at every opportunity.
If the government takes money away from people, what should we call this?
As someone who has employed people in these bands, the benefit withdrawal is treated by them, in their decision making, like tax.
Laffer curve in action - if earning more only ends up with 30% of the money on their pocket… or less…. Then people will say “we don’t want more hours”
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
Idle curiosity department: I'm 74, and have finally stood down from my job and from the Council (there will be a by-election). I had a stroke a new months ago which has left no physical traces and only the odd lapse of memory, but is a reminder of mortality.
I'm trying to avoid rushing into new commitments, but also from sinking into apathy. I'm mostly living near Oxford so looking at some of their one-off courses that don't leed to a degree. Any recommendations in this or any other activity?
As I previously suggested - give St Anthonys College, Oxford a bell. With your background they would probably have all kinds of interesting ideas for you.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org. One of the issues I've found with considerably reduced mobility is varied discussion; one tends to meet the same people when ones actually gets out and about.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
The moment rules start to get set, the critical point is not the rules themselves but who gets to control the rule decision-making process.
A @Kinablu, for example (and I am not singling them out particularly) will be very comfortable with setting restrictions on free speech because they feel confident that like minded people will control the decision making process. If they thought Nigel Farage was in control, we would be hearing howls of protest (the same applies from the right).
Banning ‘misinformation’ is often - not always - a protection mechanism by those in control to avoid difficult questions.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if there is a way of achieving this without every case running up hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees and then bankrupting the parties involved, often the wronged party? Because the current system doesn't really seem like justice at all, it is completely distorted by wealth and power.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Most lies are not 'challenging an orthodoxy'. They are just lies.
Most are.
Some are not.
Its impossible to know without hindsight/free speech which is which and giving the state the power to determine which is which gives the state the power to label the truth as a lie and a lie as a state-sanctioned Truth. As happens in Russia.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
As was the comment that acid was thrown in the face of a Muslim woman by the Hope Not Hate founder without any actual verification on their part as to whether the report was accurate.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
The moment rules start to get set, the critical point is not the rules themselves but who gets to control the rule decision-making process.
A @Kinablu, for example (and I am not singling them out particularly) will be very comfortable with setting restrictions on free speech because they feel confident that like minded people will control the decision making process. If they thought Nigel Farage was in control, we would be hearing howls of protest (the same applies from the right).
Banning ‘misinformation’ is often - not always - a protection mechanism by those in control to avoid difficult questions.
And round we go.
The history of free speech is the story of what counts as “valid speech”
You have to be careful - otherwise you’ll have scumbags advocating ending the slave trade, ending slavery itself, trade unions, votes for women, votes for people with sun tans, not killing all the First {insert country here} people….
It’s easy to tear down every law in the land to get at the Devil.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
With no incitement to violence?
I think its disgusting racism and wrong, but yes, its free speech.
Free speech includes the right to be wrong, sometimes what people thought was wrong is actually correct and vice-versa and nobody has the right to decide the objective truth.
And free speech extends to those whose views I (and others) find disgusting and repellent, or it applies to nobody.
When he places the black cloth on his wig after her Trumpian trial for treason, she might regret being so impressive and making him look like the snivelling sh** he is.
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
What, the billionaire global posterboy for Free Speech will be using his £££ to shut her up, you think?
Alternatively he could just withdraw her blue tick.
Carole does exercise PB Tories of all shades. I quite like her.
Is it not her being wrong on almost everything, but still feted by some who know better as some kind of oracle? Some of it is truly down the rabbit hole stuff, and the problem is important and powerful people listen to her and think there is truth to it.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Most lies are not 'challenging an orthodoxy'. They are just lies.
Most are.
Some are not.
Its impossible to know without hindsight/free speech which is which and giving the state the power to determine which is which gives the state the power to label the truth as a lie and a lie as a state-sanctioned Truth. As happens in Russia.
Rotherham and Epstein come to mind.
In the first case, a law was proposed that would have made reporting the *truth* subject to criminal sanction.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
With no incitement to violence?
I think its disgusting racism and wrong, but yes, its free speech.
Free speech includes the right to be wrong, sometimes what people thought was wrong is actually correct and vice-versa and nobody has the right to decide the objective truth.
And free speech extends to those whose views I (and others) find disgusting and repellent, or it applies to nobody.
But if they made the claim knowing full well that it was factually incorrect, just to stir things up, again with no explicit incitement to violence?
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
It depends. Deliberate misinformation that leads directly to great harm could well be a crime. And rightly so imo. No blanket free passes here.
Under what law and why?
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Most lies are not 'challenging an orthodoxy'. They are just lies.
Most are.
Some are not.
Its impossible to know without hindsight/free speech which is which and giving the state the power to determine which is which gives the state the power to label the truth as a lie and a lie as a state-sanctioned Truth. As happens in Russia.
Rotherham and Epstein come to mind.
In the first case, a law was proposed that would have made reporting the *truth* subject to criminal sanction.
There were loads of demands at the time, that The Times journalist should have his piece removed and that he shouldn't continuing working for them as he was clearly a vile racist.
If the Government threw money at every state secondary like the last Conservative Government threw money at Katherine Birbelsingh our schools and our children would be at Johnsonian levels of world beating performance.
The documentary I saw was of a low end building that was nothing spectacular, in what if anything was a slightly austere environment.
What is the breakdown in the formula that gives free schools more than say, academies? Points deducted if the number is greater because free schools accept more pupils with pupil premium.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
With no incitement to violence?
I think its disgusting racism and wrong, but yes, its free speech.
Free speech includes the right to be wrong, sometimes what people thought was wrong is actually correct and vice-versa and nobody has the right to decide the objective truth.
And free speech extends to those whose views I (and others) find disgusting and repellent, or it applies to nobody.
But if they made the claim knowing full well that it was factually incorrect, just to stir things up, again with no explicit incitement to violence?
They they are disgusting, nasty racist shits who should be called out for what they did and exposed to ridicule.
Free speech cuts both ways. If someone loses their job or gets "cancelled" because their vitriol was exposed and their employer decides to cut them loose, then those who exposed and highlighted the vitriol were also engaging in free speech.
But the state should have no part to play in punishing people who have not harmed anyone and not incited violence. Even if they're lying, racist shitstains.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
So, when people tweeted that the Southport murders were carried out by a "Muslim asylum seeker", with no knowledge that was true, and with no incitement to violence in the tweet, I guess that's free speech in your book?
With no incitement to violence?
I think its disgusting racism and wrong, but yes, its free speech.
Free speech includes the right to be wrong, sometimes what people thought was wrong is actually correct and vice-versa and nobody has the right to decide the objective truth.
And free speech extends to those whose views I (and others) find disgusting and repellent, or it applies to nobody.
But if they made the claim knowing full well that it was factually incorrect, just to stir things up, again with no explicit incitement to violence?
Which is why various people ended up in court. Where evidence of legal grade was provided and a qualified judge to judge.
And they ended up getting sent to prison for committing a crime, defined by prior statute. And sentenced to a term predefined in both the statute and the sentencing guidelines.
Call me a fascist, but that how I like my justice.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
Only a moron with zero reading comprehension could ever imagine that I side the the AfD.
But as you don't seem to be able to even understand "fuck off" I guess that's you.
Comments
Makes me wonder how much trade would appear in the U.K. for such…
For a specific, consider the story of tax collector / con-man Zaccheus - after repentance, Zaccheus goes home and returns the money he has skimmed off the top of the pile to the people he stole it from, fourfold. *
Or consider the metanoia (roughly - "turn around") in the account of the behaviour of the Apostle Paul, and what came after.
I'd slot the ideas being brought forward by James Timpson in as a contemporary version of that philosophy suitable for a large scales system, measured by reoffending rates etc. And the programmes which will I think be coming along are about institutionalising changed behaviour for individuals, by both learning and change of social environment.
I'd say an over emphasis on punishment only, especially punishment that removes hope for the offender is - in Christian terms - a heresy. Noisy "hang 'em and flog 'em" arguments devoid of the possibility of rehabilitation. as we find in some newspapers and types of politics, seem to me to be reflective of a more modern culture drifting from its ethical roots.
On the other side, I'm not sure that anyone could claim to "live their life on a strict Christian moral code", they could claim to aspire to do so, but the foundation is that everyone falls short and acknowledges it. There are degrees of emphasis on different aspects - eg the Holiness movement in the late 19C or some Calvinist traditions would focus on particular behaviour 'as evidence of salvation' - but the basics are the same across the piece.
* Luke 19,
That's why we need free speech.
Report for reeducation, Citizen.
https://www.wired.com/story/shimano-wireless-bicycle-shifter-jamming-replay-attacks/
Utterly inevitable…
Of those 4 the one on the lowest real marginal tax rate is Person D.
Germany (Thuringia regional parliament), INSA poll:
AfD-ESN: 30% (+7)
CDU-EPP: 21% (-1)
BSW-NI: 19% (new)
LINKE-LEFT: 16% (-15)
SPD-S&D: 6% (-2)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 3% (-2)
FDP-RE: 3% (-2)
+/- vs. 2019 election
Fieldwork: 5-12 August 2024
Sample size: 1,000
➤ http://europeelects.eu/germany"
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1823396770333986916
A man went round giving rabble rousing speeches. He incited hate against a minority group in his country. His cause eventually kicked off a real, actual civil war. In many cases his speeches caused murderous violence. To which he responded in kind. Carrying weapons, he personally killed and maimed those who objected to his incitements. He had an affinity for knifes, personally stabbed multiple people and even published a pamphlet advocating carrying knives and fighting with them.
Attempts to stop him speaking were rebuffed.
He thinks he is healthy. He thinks he is smart. He thinks he is a good golfer.
Shimano are really, really good at what they do - bike components. Electronics is a very, very different form of engineering.
Yeah, comes down to domain expertise. Bit like 3 words - big problems because he didn’t read up about 200 years of encoding practises (See telegraphic codes).
Its providing mobile medical care to those who need it.
Its sad that people need mobile medical care in that country, but that's the state of the nation thanks to mendacious evil arseholes who get in the way of safe and legal medical care.
He writes about ideas, whilst the current important questions are about words inspiring criminal activity ie violence, theft etc, and how even words by individuals with a platform can create a 'permission structure' for such criminality in teh minds of others.
For example, one that needs to be addressed is Elon Musk's promotion of conspiracy theories and racist views, and his actions demonstrating that he thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he likes. He shat on the suggestion from the EU Markets (I think) Commissioner that he was subject to EU Law when publishing material in the EU, and in his dealings with Humza Yousaf he has hinted that he will use material that Yousaf has sent privately but to which Musk has access as he owns twitter.
I think that at some point Musk is going to walk nose-first into a legal lamp post.
AIUI Google tried to buck EU law whilst operating in EU jurisdiction, and are now trying to Appeal a $3bn fine.
Musk has already cost himself something like $40bn in destroying the value of Twitter for which he paid quite a lot of cash. I'm not sure where he is going to end up.
If you think taxing the rich at a 47% marginal tax rate is putting them off working more, why do you think taxes the poorest at 80% marginal tax rate doesn't disincentivise them from doing over 16 hours?
Considering its the poorest who can most directly and immediately amend their working patterns if that disincentive wasn't there (as they could do extra hours work), it is a foolish and counterproductive real tax rate we should not have.
Meanwhile, this old IT guy still puts data cables on desks for laptops to connect.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/02/x-twitter-stock-falls-elon-musk
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law.
Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/140862
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
As much as Russia apologists like the AfD, Schroder and yourself are angered by Ukraine defending herself.
For more normal categories of cyclist, perhaps because they want them.
Two genuine things I have seen pointed out.
Firstly for multiple shifts (say if you need to go 4 or 6 cogs across in one jump.
Secondly for people who do not have strong fingers or have eg arthritis. Same principle as some disabled people needing pedelecs, on a smaller scale.
Thirdly, I can also see a case where cable runs may be complex or awkward, such as a tricycle.
Here's a piece on the claimed benefits. As with everything cycling there's a techno-nerd overpriced leading edge.
https://road.cc/content/feature/7-reasons-why-you-should-get-electronic-shifting-170093
This may be a question for @Dura_Ace .
While I'm siding with Zelensky and Ukraine.
Slava Ukraini.
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/18/inciting-rioters-in-britain-was-a-test-run-for-elon-musk-just-see-what-he-plans-for-america
Carole Codswallop still on a mission to keep her lawyers in their 4th homes.
I usually try to put her through the same filters as I would say Isobel Oakeshott from the nutty-mc-nutjob right.
Keyboard warrior, Wayne O'Rourke, 35, who earned £1,400 a month from his X account is jailed for 3 years after 'instigating' riots with posts - sparking questions for owner Elon Musk over his site's content
https://x.com/MSMWatchdog2013/status/1825183402846199941
(*) Depending on the design, you may not need a great deal of 'electronics' to simply send a gear-change signal down a cable.
Even in the US - with the first amendment - you can't incite violence (read 'terrorism' if you want to classify things that way). The EU and the UK have more restrictive laws, spottily applied, but look to be at the end of their tether with Musk.
Meanwhile, it is incredibly daft to turn an online platform that largely relies on advertisers for its income into a 4Chan-style free for all because advertisers don't want their ads to appear alongside Nazis and porn, nor want to appear besides loads of meaningless bot-driven content. You have to choose. Be an outlaw space that attracts its niche crazies, cranks and trolls, or a mainstream one.
Furthermore, by promoting so much demonstrably stupid far right content, he's likely to largely discredit and bury the smarter 'heretics' and heterodox thinkers, because frankly, neither users or governments want to wade through a platform of Elon-fanboys saying "masterful, gambit sir" to him, along with the sewage that comes from all directions now. But especially given its owners' leanings, the far right.
Maybe the line dividing a legitimate topic for discussion from an incitement to violence is on the far side of Murray's comments, that's a debate. But softening what Murray actually said makes it look like very reasonable comments are being criticised and that's dishonest.
AIUI electric/electronic gear changes can be useful if you have tribars/aerobars on, as you can have gear changers on the tribars as well as the regular handlebars - which must be very hard to do with regular cables.
Personally I'd prefer to have brakes on the tribars: as I guess I'll be sh**tting myself the first few hundred times I use them. Some of the people today had some really nice (and expensive) machines, and they flew past me.
I daresay @Dura_Ace would know more.
Free speech means being able to challenge orthodoxies or it means nothing.
Saying things others don't want to hear, like that tobacco causes cancer when the tobacco industry is worth billions and "doctors smoke Camel" can prevent a great deal of harm.
When the orthodoxy is wrong, then it needs to be challenged. That's only possible if its also possible to challenge orthodoxies that are correct. Without the benefit hindsight we don't know which orthodoxies are right and which are wrong.
Carole does exercise PB Tories of all shades. I quite like her.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Interviewing Brett Kavanaugh when examining him for suitability as a Supreme Court judge.
The way she had him sweating, stuttering, and shakin
https://x.com/notcapnamerica/status/1824502072651260024
The only caveat though is that I think there is a difference between 'free speech' and 'freedom to broadcast'. There is a significant difference between the two things.
As someone who has employed people in these bands, the benefit withdrawal is treated by them, in their decision making, like tax.
Laffer curve in action - if earning more only ends up with 30% of the money on their pocket… or less…. Then people will say “we don’t want more hours”
A @Kinablu, for example (and I am not singling them out particularly) will be very comfortable with setting restrictions on free speech because they feel confident that like minded people will control the decision making process. If they thought Nigel Farage was in control, we would be hearing howls of protest (the same applies from the right).
Banning ‘misinformation’ is often - not always - a protection mechanism by those in control to avoid difficult questions.
Some are not.
Its impossible to know without hindsight/free speech which is which and giving the state the power to determine which is which gives the state the power to label the truth as a lie and a lie as a state-sanctioned Truth. As happens in Russia.
The history of free speech is the story of what counts as “valid speech”
You have to be careful - otherwise you’ll have scumbags advocating ending the slave trade, ending slavery itself, trade unions, votes for women, votes for people with sun tans, not killing all the First {insert country here} people….
It’s easy to tear down every law in the land to get at the Devil.
I think its disgusting racism and wrong, but yes, its free speech.
Free speech includes the right to be wrong, sometimes what people thought was wrong is actually correct and vice-versa and nobody has the right to decide the objective truth.
And free speech extends to those whose views I (and others) find disgusting and repellent, or it applies to nobody.
When he places the black cloth on his wig after her Trumpian trial for treason, she might regret being so impressive and making him look like the snivelling sh** he is.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
In the first case, a law was proposed that would have made reporting the *truth* subject to criminal sanction.
What is the breakdown in the formula that gives free schools more than say, academies? Points deducted if the number is greater because free schools accept more pupils with pupil premium.
Free speech cuts both ways. If someone loses their job or gets "cancelled" because their vitriol was exposed and their employer decides to cut them loose, then those who exposed and highlighted the vitriol were also engaging in free speech.
But the state should have no part to play in punishing people who have not harmed anyone and not incited violence. Even if they're lying, racist shitstains.
And they ended up getting sent to prison for committing a crime, defined by prior statute. And sentenced to a term predefined in both the statute and the sentencing guidelines.
Call me a fascist, but that how I like my justice.
But as you don't seem to be able to even understand "fuck off" I guess that's you.
NEW THREAD
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
43m
Ed Davey confirms Lib Dems will oppose withdrawal of universal winter fuel allowance – BBC Broadcasting House