Musk bought Trump, Thiel bought Vance. Both end up with the kinds of opinions a white South African billionaire might like. Musk has no respect for humanity and supports extreme right-wing politics. Ditto Thiel except he openly opposes democracy unlike Musk, because voters choose welfare states, women's suffrage and such (this is all on the record of the Cato Institute).
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
Most of the electorate are low information, in the sense that, even if some still pay attention to the news, they spend no significant amounts of time analysing politics and policy. PB readers are not normal. Most of the electorate, including most of the Reform electorate, are not racist thickos either.
Whilst I'd surmise that Reform has more than its fair share of hard right fans - it dominates the right of Tory space on the political spectrum currently - its real source of strength is amongst the great many people who have been struggling economically for a long time, who see no realistic prospect of their lot improving, and therefore feel that they have little left to lose by upending the political system.
If you view Labour and the Conservatives simply as two cheeks of the same rich fat arse that shits on you from a great height, then the choices you have left are to give up and not participate in the democratic process, or find a disruptor. It's possible (and personally I think it's almost certain) that a hypothetical Reform Government would be just as much for the already wealthy and powerful as the big two, but it's arguably logical to roll the dice.
Labour can only get these voters back through delivery, and that primarily means rising living standards for the bottom half of the income distribution. It's not going to happen, is it?
It means surplus housing so that renters have affordable choices and less pressure on all kinds of services so that they can actually accomplish the designated job, as well as actual employment opportunities.
Or if employment isn't possible any longer due to automation, a different vision of how people are supposed to be able to have a meaningful life.
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
But why do you think they aren't racist thickos?
The only ways Labour could reasonably conceivably stop losing voters on the immigration issue are by adopting Reform-like policies (which they and the Conservatives probably will) or by turning left and encouraging native and immigrant workers alike to join trade unions (which would mean going further left than Corbyn, which they certainly won't).
In addition the wages differentials (and often also working hours differentials) in say the building sector or hospitality between native British workers and e.g. Romanian illegals may be too high for "uniting and fighting" to be that attractive to many workers in either group.
The wage differentials are between illegal and legal building companies, in that sector.
The illegal ones are hiring workers with no right to work, at less than minimum wage, paying no tax etc.
The reason that these jobs go to foreigners is language - much easier to abuse and control people who don't speak the local language.
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
Austerity Reeves says nobody raised concerns about her expenses when at HBoS
As there was an investigation somebody clearly did
She is silent on fake dentist appointments
It's outrageous. Fake dentists? Whatever next.
Just filling time at a fake dentists?
I can imagine going to a local Labour Party meeting would be a bit like pulling teeth
I haven't attended one for decades. In Camden in the 1980s it was all (old school- they had been on the Aldermaston march in the fifties and sixties) CND, miners's strikes and pipes and doves of peace. It is probably no worse now. What I would consider even more unpleasant would be a room full of Johnsonian Tories and Faragista Brexiteers.
Not my experience in Oxfordshire, or previously London and Nottinghamshire. Party meetings aren't in my experience usually very exciting, or controversial - practical issues dominate.
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
Most of the electorate are low information, in the sense that, even if some still pay attention to the news, they spend no significant amounts of time analysing politics and policy. PB readers are not normal. Most of the electorate, including most of the Reform electorate, are not racist thickos either.
Whilst I'd surmise that Reform has more than its fair share of hard right fans - it dominates the right of Tory space on the political spectrum currently - its real source of strength is amongst the great many people who have been struggling economically for a long time, who see no realistic prospect of their lot improving, and therefore feel that they have little left to lose by upending the political system.
If you view Labour and the Conservatives simply as two cheeks of the same rich fat arse that shits on you from a great height, then the choices you have left are to give up and not participate in the democratic process, or find a disruptor. It's possible (and personally I think it's almost certain) that a hypothetical Reform Government would be just as much for the already wealthy and powerful as the big two, but it's arguably logical to roll the dice.
Labour can only get these voters back through delivery, and that primarily means rising living standards for the bottom half of the income distribution. It's not going to happen, is it?
It means surplus housing so that renters have affordable choices and less pressure on all kinds of services so that they can actually accomplish the designated job, as well as actual employment opportunities.
Or if employment isn't possible any longer due to automation, a different vision of how people are supposed to be able to have a meaningful life.
There aren't many societies with both surplus housing and enough jobs. Lots of regions with surplus housing and no jobs (even in the UK). As soon as people see jobs, though, they try to move to that place.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
if anyone was trying to censor it, they did a really shit job. i saw that crap all over the place.
Austerity Reeves says nobody raised concerns about her expenses when at HBoS
As there was an investigation somebody clearly did
She is silent on fake dentist appointments
It's outrageous. Fake dentists? Whatever next.
Just filling time at a fake dentists?
I can imagine going to a local Labour Party meeting would be a bit like pulling teeth
I haven't attended one for decades. In Camden in the 1980s it was all (old school- they had been on the Aldermaston march in the fifties and sixties) CND, miners's strikes and pipes and doves of peace. It is probably no worse now. What I would consider even more unpleasant would be a room full of Johnsonian Tories and Faragista Brexiteers.
Not my experience in Oxfordshire, or previously London and Nottinghamshire. Party meetings aren't in my experience usually very exciting, or controversial - practical issues dominate.
Oh they were neither. I have sold excitement when just absurdity abounded. There wasn't much in the way of local politics it was very right on. Remember this was Camden in the 1980s.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie · 2h I’d be more open to @JDVance ’s otherwise compelling case for Europe to rediscover its most enlightened traditions if he and Trump hadn’t just given the continent’s leading warmonger and tyrant the best propaganda boost he’s had in ages
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
How do we stop lies spreading without stopping truth spreading? Because during covid, as well as preventing spreading lies about vaccines, we also prevented any qyestion of the efficacy of lockdown or the source of the disease. I'm all for no more lies. But it can't be done without some fairly major collateral damage to the truth.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without being insulting?
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
But why do you think they aren't racist thickos?
The only ways Labour could reasonably conceivably stop losing voters on the immigration issue are by adopting Reform-like policies (which they and the Conservatives probably will) or by turning left and encouraging native and immigrant workers alike to join trade unions (which would mean going further left than Corbyn, which they certainly won't).
In addition the wages differentials (and often also working hours differentials) in say the building sector or hospitality between native British workers and e.g. Romanian illegals may be too high for "uniting and fighting" to be that attractive to many workers in either group.
They could, you know, just stop letting so many people in. I simply don't believe that 25% of the population are 'racist thickos'. Pace Johnny Rotten - I've met the man on the Clapham Omnibus - he's quite nice.
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
Most of the electorate are low information, in the sense that, even if some still pay attention to the news, they spend no significant amounts of time analysing politics and policy. PB readers are not normal. Most of the electorate, including most of the Reform electorate, are not racist thickos either.
Whilst I'd surmise that Reform has more than its fair share of hard right fans - it dominates the right of Tory space on the political spectrum currently - its real source of strength is amongst the great many people who have been struggling economically for a long time, who see no realistic prospect of their lot improving, and therefore feel that they have little left to lose by upending the political system.
If you view Labour and the Conservatives simply as two cheeks of the same rich fat arse that shits on you from a great height, then the choices you have left are to give up and not participate in the democratic process, or find a disruptor. It's possible (and personally I think it's almost certain) that a hypothetical Reform Government would be just as much for the already wealthy and powerful as the big two, but it's arguably logical to roll the dice.
Labour can only get these voters back through delivery, and that primarily means rising living standards for the bottom half of the income distribution. It's not going to happen, is it?
No, Labour aren't going to get migration under control.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The real problem with his speech is the timing. Utterly tin eared.
Reform voters tend to be low information voters. They don't know much about the detail of how the world works and they don't care - they just want things to be good for them and their own.
That is so polite. They are racist thickos.
Characterisations like that are why Labour will continue to lose voters to Reform. If you tell people they are racist for wanting lower immigration, they will not stop wanting lower immigration; they will just conclude that your definition of 'racist' is so infantile and meaningless that there is no bar to voting for the party you are characterising as 'racist'.
25% of the electorate are not racist thickos. Rochdale's characterisation is correct.
But why do you think they aren't racist thickos?
The only ways Labour could reasonably conceivably stop losing voters on the immigration issue are by adopting Reform-like policies (which they and the Conservatives probably will) or by turning left and encouraging native and immigrant workers alike to join trade unions (which would mean going further left than Corbyn, which they certainly won't).
In addition the wages differentials (and often also working hours differentials) in say the building sector or hospitality between native British workers and e.g. Romanian illegals may be too high for "uniting and fighting" to be that attractive to many workers in either group.
They could, you know, just stop letting so many people in. I simply don't believe that 25% of the population are 'racist thickos'. Pace Johnny Rotten - I've met the man on the Clapham Omnibus - he's quite nice.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without being insulting?
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
You come out with a nonsensical statement and then blame your inability to justify it on the "tone" of the response you get.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
I’ve flown from Orkney and it wasn’t that expensive. Kirkwall airport is great. I got an extra slice of bacon in my bap because ‘I looked a bit hungry’.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without being insulting?
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
You come out with a nonsensical statement and then blame your inability to justify it on the "tone" of the response you get.
Well yes. You lost the argument as soon as you typed ‘useful idiots’.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Wouldn’t Farnborough > Orkney be easier?
It's a shame you want Orkney as the ferry from Aberdeen leaves at 17:00 just before the 10:00 from Kings Cross arrives.
Now if you want to get to the Shetlands that ferry leaves at 19:00 and arrives at 7:30 so if you can get to Kings Cross in less than 2.5 hours you can get to Shetland in under 24 hours..
Edit if you get the 8:30 from KX you get to Aberdeen by 16:00 giving you an hour to get on the ferry.
IIRC the Andersen to Lerwick ferry stops at Kirkwall?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
I’ve flown from Orkney and it wasn’t that expensive. Kirkwall airport is great. I got an extra slice of bacon in my bap because ‘I looked a bit hungry’.
I know Kirkwall from Dishonored. Can't remember any airport, mind.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
I’ve flown from Orkney and it wasn’t that expensive. Kirkwall airport is great. I got an extra slice of bacon in my bap because ‘I looked a bit hungry’.
Sumburgh airport in Shetland has a road going across one of its runways. Barriers come down to block the road when a plane is taking off or landing.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Wouldn’t Farnborough > Orkney be easier?
It's a shame you want Orkney as the ferry from Aberdeen leaves at 17:00 just before the 10:00 from Kings Cross arrives.
Now if you want to get to the Shetlands that ferry leaves at 19:00 and arrives at 7:30 so if you can get to Kings Cross in less than 2.5 hours you can get to Shetland in under 24 hours..
Edit if you get the 8:30 from KX you get to Aberdeen by 16:00 giving you an hour to get on the ferry.
IIRC the Andersen to Lerwick ferry stops at Kirkwall?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Do you think the silent prayers should be allowed into the abortion clinic premises or do you understand that there should be a limit to their presence while women are undergoing what for many or most is a traumatic experience?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I agree with much of that - but OTOH, I’ve no problem with Vance expressing his somewhat skewed opinions. It’s just that to do so at the opening of a conference on the Russian invasion, where the US is effectively telling Europe they might be on their own as far as their security is concerned, is nonsensical.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
I’ve flown from Orkney and it wasn’t that expensive. Kirkwall airport is great. I got an extra slice of bacon in my bap because ‘I looked a bit hungry’.
Sumburgh airport in Shetland has a road going across one of its runways. Barriers come down to block the road when a plane is taking off or landing.
I did not know that. St Mary’s airport on Scilly has a footpath across the runway. I think they flash some lights…
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Well, I would point out the choice of words i.e. "arrested", rather than "convicted" or "imprisoned".
Like all vaguely worded laws, people are constantly testing them to see their limits: so, what exactly constitutes a protests?
Here, he was seeing if being there on his own silently praying would be considered in breach of the law. I'm sure, if it was considered that it was not, then there would have been a test of whether 5 people praying outside a clinic was OK.
Hard cases make bad law. We want freedom of speech, we don't want people harassed on their way to medical care. (Especially as most of the medical care at the clinic was just, you know, regular medical care.)
Where we draw the line is an incredibly difficult one, and ultimately it will be juries and magistrates who establish case law about what constitutes harassment.
What we must not do is to trivializes it and imply that there is some secret agenda at work, rather than people making individual, difficult decisions.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Parliament has decided that women should be able to access medical services without having to wade through crowds of religious types. And it clearly decided it wasn't going to make exceptions if there were only one, or a small handful.
There's a general disdain in public opinion for demonstrations such as this, or placard wavers turning up outside the private homes of politicians, for example. None of this means that protest against abortion is outlawed. These people are perfectly at liberty to organise vigils in appropriate places, such as outside Parliament.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Parliament has decided that women should be able to access medical services without having to wade through crowds of r
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
I once travelled back from Durness (very northwest tip of Scotland) to Cambridge in a day by public transport (aside from a taxi from the station). From memory, it was a postbus to Lairg at 08.30, then a bus to Inverness, and a train down to Edinburgh. Once there, I realised I could just catch services back to Cambridge - I'd planned to spend the night in Edinburgh, preferring that city to Stevenage...
I arrived back at the front door of our home at about eleven. I held a piece of stag's antler I'd picked up on my walk in the hand as my then-GF opened the door. As she saw me, I asked: "Feeling horny?"
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Parliament has decided that women should be able to access medical services without having to wade through crowds of r
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
The rightwing generally are the biggest snowflakes and whingers out. Vance's going on about being denied free speech is just the latest example. In Britain some Conservatives talk as if they've already lost the next election on the immigration issue, but whenever the election comes to be held they won't be the sitting government at the time, and if they install a white leader they'll get away with blaming immigration on Labour because voters have short memories.
But the left should be able to come up with better criticism of Musk than saying please Elon can we have more freedom to say what we want on Twitter. I'm sure Musk loves it whenever Twitter is viewed as a public service - even if the way he runs it is criticised - because it means he has less competition.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without being insulting?
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
You come out with a nonsensical statement and then blame your inability to justify it on the "tone" of the response you get.
Well yes. You lost the argument as soon as you typed ‘useful idiots’.
How very dare you infringe my free speech? Boo hoo.
O/T, My Spotify random player has just picked, back-to-back, two of the greatest songs about horse racing ever written:
Elbow - The Fix followed by The Pogues - Bottle of Smoke.
(The third being The Galway Farmer by Show of Hands. Go on, treat yourself to a medley - although The Pogues are a bit sweary so may be NSFW...)
Is there a fourth?
Sound of the Thunder, maybe? (Fureys)
It's fine, but doesn't quite get into the essence of racing like the other three?
The essence of racing being - if I am to infer from the Fix - cheating?
I din't know Show of Hands - I will look them out - but The Fix and Bottle of Smoke are splendid whether you are a racing enthusiast or not.
Cheating is something integral to racing. My stepfather was on the wong end of it.
Cheating? Cycling says "hold my beer". Also athletics. And Formula 1.
It's impossible to cheat in F1, as it isn't a sport. It's a business. You can bend - or even break - the rules as much as you like, until you fall foul of the senior management. You can do all sorts of things without comment if you're in the managements' good books. But if you are not, or damage the brand's reputation, then you are in trouble.
F1 has been compared to a members' club in the past. I've never been a member of a members' club, but from what I know of both, the comparison fits.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The real problem with his speech is the timing. Utterly tin eared.
It is perfect timing if you want to tell Russia: we are friends, Europe are our enemy.
Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me the U.S. Congressional delegation presented Zelensky with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign which would grant the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral reserves. Zelensky politely declined to sign it. https://x.com/joshrogin/status/1890450535083290803
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
There's no problem with silently praying. Protesting at the entrance to abortion clinics causes distress. Take the protest, whatever form it takes, at least 150m away. Thanks.
Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me the U.S. Congressional delegation presented Zelensky with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign which would grant the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral reserves. Zelensky politely declined to sign it. https://x.com/joshrogin/status/1890450535083290803
If they helped Ukraine defeat Russia, isn't 50% of Russia's future mineral reserves a much bigger prize?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
On the subject of travel challenges, I did one with my eldest a few years back. Edinburgh to London on the sleeper, then train to Holyhead, ferry to Dublin and train to Belfast. All 4 nations of the UK plus ROI by surface travel in less than 24 hours.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Once tried to fly to Orkney from the SE. The lady on the line laughed. She could get me to Australia cheaper...
I’ve flown from Orkney and it wasn’t that expensive. Kirkwall airport is great. I got an extra slice of bacon in my bap because ‘I looked a bit hungry’.
Sumburgh airport in Shetland has a road going across one of its runways. Barriers come down to block the road when a plane is taking off or landing.
Cambridge airport does not have a road across its runway, but traffic does stop when a heavy comes in. There are traffic lights for them: (The cars, not the planes; I'm not quite sure how traffic lights would work for a plane coming into land...)
On the subject of travel challenges, I did one with my eldest a few years back. Edinburgh to London on the sleeper, then train to Holyhead, ferry to Dublin and train to Belfast. All 4 nations of the UK plus ROI by surface travel in less than 24 hours.
Only because you did not have to stop and charge your Tesla.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Parliament has decided that women should be able to access medical services without having to wade through crowds of r
On the subject of travel challenges, I did one with my eldest a few years back. Edinburgh to London on the sleeper, then train to Holyhead, ferry to Dublin and train to Belfast. All 4 nations of the UK plus ROI by surface travel in less than 24 hours.
Only because you did not have to stop and charge your Tesla.
Surely if you drive a Tesla, you need to stop for all the parades of people coming past doing a Nazi salute?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
Hmmm. My impression is that you are far more likely to get suspended/sacked for that kind of thing in the US than here in Germany, at least. So he should be saying 'I've come here to learn from you guys'
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
I'm inclined to flag you. Do you realise you have just Goodwinned the thread?
P.S. Is he a black or white Zimbabwean? I am sure that makes all the difference.
I wonder how long it will take the Reform types to work it out. Don't leave the ECHR. Reform the judges. Just like in the US.....
Part of the issue is that most of these decisions aren’t made by “judges” as your conceive them. Until Blair renamed them in the face of union complaints they felt unappreciated they were calls “immigration panel chairs”
Which is what they are.
All Blair achieved was undermining respect in our legal system
Telegraph Ed Miliband has pledged a permanent ban on fracking just days after the discovery of a giant gas field in Britain was announced.
Short memories at the Telegraph. Labour Party manifesto, last July: "ban fracking for good."
Shortly: "Homeowners in Hampshire IN PANIC as EVIL MARXIST Starmer unveils plans to allow fracking giant nearby gas field! * Also: Page 14: Why wind turbines are actually great."
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
I'm inclined to flag you. Do you realise you have just Goodwinned the thread?
P.S. Is he a black or white Zimbabwean? I am sure that makes all the difference.
I wonder how long it will take the Reform types to work it out. Don't leave the ECHR. Reform the judges. Just like in the US.....
Part of the issue is that most of these decisions aren’t made by “judges” as your conceive them. Until Blair renamed them in the face of union complaints they felt unappreciated they were calls “immigration panel chairs”
Which is what they are.
All Blair achieved was undermining respect in our legal system
My point is that to subvert the law to do what you want, only clowns try and change the law.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
How does praying silently cause distress?
Well, I would point out the choice of words i.e. "arrested", rather than "convicted" or "imprisoned".
Like all vaguely worded laws, people are constantly testing them to see their limits: so, what exactly constitutes a protests?
Here, he was seeing if being there on his own silently praying would be considered in breach of the law. I'm sure, if it was considered that it was not, then there would have been a test of whether 5 people praying outside a clinic was OK.
Hard cases make bad law. We want freedom of speech, we don't want people harassed on their way to medical care. (Especially as most of the medical care at the clinic was just, you know, regular medical care.)
Where we draw the line is an incredibly difficult one, and ultimately it will be juries and magistrates who establish case law about what constitutes harassment.
What we must not do is to trivializes it and imply that there is some secret agenda at work, rather than people making individual, difficult decisions.
I think the prevailing attitude in this country is “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The less popular the cause, the less likely people will be free to demonstrate.
But, Vance and Trump are no paragons, in terms of protecting free speech.
A bold prediction. Reform are peaking too soon. They may still rise a bit over the next year or so, but will then stagnate in the run-up to 2029 GE, and will decline during the heat of an election campaign, ending up with a core vote of around 20% or less as their lack of substance is revealed. Why? Lots of reasons. Tice is an idiot. Their policy offer is incoherent and unaffordable. Immigration will have come down. And Farage's end of the pier show will feel a bit old hat.
I think so. There's just not quite enough racism, bigotry and stupidity in this country to get them over the line. There's enough to do well though.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Wouldn’t Farnborough > Orkney be easier?
It would. Sort of cheating though.
Actually, I can do it. If I got in at 11pm into Thurso, stayed at the Premier Inn next to it, and then got the 6.30am ferry from Scrabster to Stromness I'd get in at 8am, which is essentially 24 hours (my train doesn't leave Alton until 08:14 so I'd beat it by 10 minutes).
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
But...our courts have generally upheld, admittedly after much wrangling, Gender Critical women's right to their views - and right not to be dismissed for them. In practice of course certain organisations went beyond this - many got terrible advice as to their obligations - but the law there has worked to, in the end, protect their speech. And guess what, the argument has shifted despite certain people trying to shut down certain views.
It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.
As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.
And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).
That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.
I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Wouldn’t Farnborough > Orkney be easier?
It's a shame you want Orkney as the ferry from Aberdeen leaves at 17:00 just before the 10:00 from Kings Cross arrives.
Now if you want to get to the Shetlands that ferry leaves at 19:00 and arrives at 7:30 so if you can get to Kings Cross in less than 2.5 hours you can get to Shetland in under 24 hours..
Edit if you get the 8:30 from KX you get to Aberdeen by 16:00 giving you an hour to get on the ferry.
Thanks. That's pretty cool.
So both the Orkneys and Shetlands accessible inside 24 hours.
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
I'm inclined to flag you. Do you realise you have just Goodwinned the thread?
P.S. Is he a black or white Zimbabwean? I am sure that makes all the difference.
I wonder how long it will take the Reform types to work it out. Don't leave the ECHR. Reform the judges. Just like in the US.....
Part of the issue is that most of these decisions aren’t made by “judges” as your conceive them. Until Blair renamed them in the face of union complaints they felt unappreciated they were calls “immigration panel chairs”
Which is what they are.
All Blair achieved was undermining respect in our legal system
He achieved more than that. Don't forget the endless peace we now have in the middle east and the calm between europe and russia.
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
That would be rather expensive and, I suspect, still take 6-8 hours - at least - with a decent faff factor to/from and waiting at airports etc.
Admittedly that's 16 hours fewer than overland but at least 6 hours of that is sleeping.
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
But...our courts have generally upheld, admittedly after much wrangling, Gender Critical women's right to their views - and right not to be dismissed for them. In practice of course certain organisations went beyond this - many got terrible advice as to their obligations - but the law there has worked to, in the end, protect their speech. And guess what, the argument has shifted despite certain people trying to shut down certain views.
It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.
As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.
And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).
That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.
I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.
Over the course of a couple of posts you have made your point excellently, and have caused me to rethink the degree to which Vance has a case worth making.
Telegraph Ed Miliband has pledged a permanent ban on fracking just days after the discovery of a giant gas field in Britain was announced.
Well, the gas is going nowhere...
Indeed. Best keep it where it is until we really need it for essential industrial purposes rather than flogging/burning it now. Our kids will thank us.
Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me the U.S. Congressional delegation presented Zelensky with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign which would grant the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral reserves. Zelensky politely declined to sign it. https://x.com/joshrogin/status/1890450535083290803
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
I once travelled back from Durness (very northwest tip of Scotland) to Cambridge in a day by public transport (aside from a taxi from the station). From memory, it was a postbus to Lairg at 08.30, then a bus to Inverness, and a train down to Edinburgh. Once there, I realised I could just catch services back to Cambridge - I'd planned to spend the night in Edinburgh, preferring that city to Stevenage...
I arrived back at the front door of our home at about eleven. I held a piece of stag's antler I'd picked up on my walk in the hand as my then-GF opened the door. As she saw me, I asked: "Feeling horny?"
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
But...our courts have generally upheld, admittedly after much wrangling, Gender Critical women's right to their views - and right not to be dismissed for them. In practice of course certain organisations went beyond this - many got terrible advice as to their obligations - but the law there has worked to, in the end, protect their speech. And guess what, the argument has shifted despite certain people trying to shut down certain views.
It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.
As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.
And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).
That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.
I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.
Over the course of a couple of posts you have made your point excellently, and have caused me to rethink the degree to which Vance has a case worth making.
Thank you.
Careful - rethinking your opinion as a result of someone’s post on PB is practically a banning offence…
I can't see a reason why Reform couldn't poll 34-35% in a GE. They'd probably pip Labour and with tactical voting the other way (big ifs) they could govern in coalition/C&S with the Tories.
But, Farage would need to get a credible economic offer together and a serious foreign policy to do it first.
Telegraph Ed Miliband has pledged a permanent ban on fracking just days after the discovery of a giant gas field in Britain was announced.
Well, the gas is going nowhere...
Indeed. Best keep it where it is until we really need it for essential industrial purposes rather than flogging/burning it now. Our kids will thank us.
So best to import it from our neighbours or as LNG from further afield ...
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.
The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment. So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome. There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think. So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
But...our courts have generally upheld, admittedly after much wrangling, Gender Critical women's right to their views - and right not to be dismissed for them. In practice of course certain organisations went beyond this - many got terrible advice as to their obligations - but the law there has worked to, in the end, protect their speech. And guess what, the argument has shifted despite certain people trying to shut down certain views.
It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.
As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.
And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).
That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.
I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.
Good points but I think you miss the prevailing sense of direction and opinion isn’t just determined by government and law. Why did organisations over egg the pudding? Why does the hospital in Scotland believe trans women have an automatic right to female changing spaces?
Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.
It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.
For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.
My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.
My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.
In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.
"Our desire to censor voices" is just a hard-right fantasy that the likes of Musk use to try to justify an overwhelming stream of online disinformation.
What fools people are to believe a word of this crap.
It very clearly isn't just a hard-right fantasy. It only happens at the margins and is perhaps the least worst way to deal with the misinformation that is being firehosed at us. But to deny it's existence is naive. How else would you characterise the way we handled vaccine misinformation during COVID?
The trouble is that the world is full of useful idiots like you, who seem to think that "free speech" means lies should be allowed to propagate without correction or challenge.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without being insulting?
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
You come out with a nonsensical statement and then blame your inability to justify it on the "tone" of the response you get.
Well yes. You lost the argument as soon as you typed ‘useful idiots’.
Chris has always been an idiot I just ignore his posts as he is a wanker
Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.
That really is quite incredible.
Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.
Sure you can, albeit you will need to fly: Hampshire -> London -> Aberdeen/Glasgow -> Orkney.
Wouldn’t Farnborough > Orkney be easier?
It would. Sort of cheating though.
Actually, I can do it. If I got in at 11pm into Thurso, stayed at the Premier Inn next to it, and then got the 6.30am ferry from Scrabster to Stromness I'd get in at 8am, which is essentially 24 hours (my train doesn't leave Alton until 08:14 so I'd beat it by 10 minutes).
I think it’s possible to swim the Pentland Firth in c.4 hours. Start training now! My great grandad commanded an armed trawler at Scapa during WWI and I’d like to visit at some point. The Scapa Flow Museum is supposed to be very good.
Comments
You're missing some classics:
Long Shot Kick The Bucket by The Pioneers
Delaney's Donkey by Val Doonican
@EdwardJDavey
·
48m
I wonder if JD Vance is planning to lecture his boss’s buddy Vladimir Putin on democracy and free speech. 🤔
@GoodwinMJ
A convicted Zimbabwean paedophile has been allowed to stay in Britain because he used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim he would face “hostility” if he was deported back (Telegraph)
We need to leave the ECHR. Now."
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1890427938291450362
Or if employment isn't possible any longer due to automation, a different vision of how people are supposed to be able to have a meaningful life.
P.S. Is he a black or white Zimbabwean? I am sure that makes all the difference.
The illegal ones are hiring workers with no right to work, at less than minimum wage, paying no tax etc.
The reason that these jobs go to foreigners is language - much easier to abuse and control people who don't speak the local language.
emily m
@maitlis
·
1h
Man who claims Donald Trump
Didn’t lose 2020 election tells Europeans they’ve lost their way on democracy …
https://x.com/maitlis/status/1890465481045254579
It'll be funny when Musk does precisely that.
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
@montie
·
2h
I’d be more open to
@JDVance
’s otherwise compelling case for Europe to rediscover its most enlightened traditions if he and Trump hadn’t just given the continent’s leading warmonger and tyrant the best propaganda boost he’s had in ages
Because during covid, as well as preventing spreading lies about vaccines, we also prevented any qyestion of the efficacy of lockdown or the source of the disease.
I'm all for no more lies. But it can't be done without some fairly major collateral damage to the truth.
I would in no way characterise free speech in the way you suggest. I would have thought that was obvious from my first post. I have no desire to make the effort to spell it out given the tone of your response.
I simply don't believe that 25% of the population are 'racist thickos'.
Pace Johnny Rotten - I've met the man on the Clapham Omnibus - he's quite nice.
Utterly tin eared.
99% of the electorate vote for Putin. so there’s nothing to talk about.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rsXPeqFKm_4
The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.
Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.
Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.
Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.
What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.
Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.
By definition you are an Antisemite
It’s just that to do so at the opening of a conference on the Russian invasion, where the US is effectively telling Europe they might be on their own as far as their security is concerned, is nonsensical.
Like all vaguely worded laws, people are constantly testing them to see their limits: so, what exactly constitutes a protests?
Here, he was seeing if being there on his own silently praying would be considered in breach of the law. I'm sure, if it was considered that it was not, then there would have been a test of whether 5 people praying outside a clinic was OK.
Hard cases make bad law. We want freedom of speech, we don't want people harassed on their way to medical care. (Especially as most of the medical care at the clinic was just, you know, regular medical care.)
Where we draw the line is an incredibly difficult one, and ultimately it will be juries and magistrates who establish case law about what constitutes harassment.
What we must not do is to trivializes it and imply that there is some secret agenda at work, rather than people making individual, difficult decisions.
There's a general disdain in public opinion for demonstrations such as this, or placard wavers turning up outside the private homes of politicians, for example. None of this means that protest against abortion is outlawed. These people are perfectly at liberty to organise vigils in appropriate places, such as outside Parliament.
It’s just not consonant with their rights.
I arrived back at the front door of our home at about eleven. I held a piece of stag's antler I'd picked up on my walk in the hand as my then-GF opened the door. As she saw me, I asked: "Feeling horny?"
As I said, she's my ex...
EDIT: damn!
But the left should be able to come up with better criticism of Musk than saying please Elon can we have more freedom to say what we want on Twitter. I'm sure Musk loves it whenever Twitter is viewed as a public service - even if the way he runs it is criticised - because it means he has less competition.
https://x.com/roguesnradvisor/status/1890425431683190813
F1 has been compared to a members' club in the past. I've never been a member of a members' club, but from what I know of both, the comparison fits.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14398219/tourist-hands-bitten-shark-Caribbean-beach-predator.html
Canadian tourist now missing two hands but did she get her selfie with the shark?
https://x.com/joshrogin/status/1890450535083290803
Take the protest, whatever form it takes, at least 150m away. Thanks.
So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome.
There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think.
So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sdMU31bnyoXYamsp6
Ed Miliband has pledged a permanent ban on fracking just days after the discovery of a giant gas field in Britain was announced.
Check out this advertising for blackface makeup for the upcoming carnival:
https://de.costumalia.com/products/tube-braunes-make-up-braun
Which is what they are.
All Blair achieved was undermining respect in our legal system
Change the judges (or whatever)….
Yet imbeciles such as Liz Truss continue to ignore this basic reality.
But, Vance and Trump are no paragons, in terms of protecting free speech.
Actually, I can do it. If I got in at 11pm into Thurso, stayed at the Premier Inn next to it, and then got the 6.30am ferry from Scrabster to Stromness I'd get in at 8am, which is essentially 24 hours (my train doesn't leave Alton until 08:14 so I'd beat it by 10 minutes).
It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.
As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.
And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).
That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.
I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.
So both the Orkneys and Shetlands accessible inside 24 hours.
Nice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pddz529eo
Don't talk our Tony down.
Admittedly that's 16 hours fewer than overland but at least 6 hours of that is sleeping.
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1890075390590476428
Thank you.
Uncanny has just started. It's a humdinger
But, Farage would need to get a credible economic offer together and a serious foreign policy to do it first.
My great grandad commanded an armed trawler at Scapa during WWI and I’d like to visit at some point. The Scapa Flow Museum is supposed to be very good.