What Brits think about the Big Mac eating surrender monkey's plans for Ukraine politicalbetting.com

maxh said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@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

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@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

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.

kamski said:

Cookie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

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.

You're missing some classics:

Long Shot Kick The Bucket by The Pioneers

Delaney's Donkey by Val Doonican

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

MarqueeMark said:

Northern_Al said:

bigjohnowls said:

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.

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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?

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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.

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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.

pigeon said:

Cookie said:

Winchy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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?

Cookie said:

Winchy said:

Cookie said:

Winchy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

Nigelb said:

Zelenskyy: Trump told me Putin wants to end the war. I told him Putin is a liar.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-volodymyr-zelenskyy-donald-trump-putin-liar-peace/

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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.

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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.

eek said:

StillWaters said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

SteveS said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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’.

SteveS said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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’.

Andy_JS said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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?

Winchy said:

SteveS said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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?

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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.

SteveS said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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’.

Nigelb said:

LOL at all the MAGA crowd having to post that this isn’t real.
https://x.com/roguesnradvisor/status/1890425431683190813

Nigelb said:

maxh said:

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.

Nigelb said:

LOL at all the MAGA crowd having to post that this isn’t real.
https://x.com/roguesnradvisor/status/1890425431683190813

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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.

Winchy said:

SteveS said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

Nigelb said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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

No one should have to wade through crowds of r.

It’s just not consonant with their rights.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

geoffw said:

Telegraph
Ed Miliband has pledged a permanent ban on fracking just days after the discovery of a giant gas field in Britain was announced.

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@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

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.....

StillWaters said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@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

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

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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.

StillWaters said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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?

eek said:

StillWaters said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

MarqueeMark said:

geoffw said:

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...

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

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?"

As I said, she's my ex...

maxh said:

MJW said:

turbotubbs said:

MJW said:

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

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.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MarqueeMark said:

geoffw said:

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.

SteveS said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

Chris said:

maxh said:

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’.