US Presidential election | Page 58 | Vital Football

US Presidential election

valenciagill said:
Us more mature folk remember the old days , when news coverage wasn't so biased.
'Millennials' have been brainwashed into thinking the likes of CNN , NBC etc is normal.
Sky news used to be better , but since ownership transferred to Comcast it has sadly become just as partisan as the others.
Click to expand...

News has always been as biased since the beginning of time. The difference lately is that twitter has added to the brainwashing and the media outlets are not disguising their bias on both sides. It makes them money.

The media are in general the mouthpiece of the ruling institutions or the opposition, nothing in between. The best thing is when they actually (rarely) do investigative work that calls power to task or improves peoples lives.
 
Buddha said:
It's populist bullshit, shotshy.

The Left has (as it often does) defeated itself by sticking its head up it's arse and eating itself from the inside.

The Right has (as it often does) manipulated things and positioned itself to exploit the situation.

Neither the Left nor the Right provide the solution. The centre ground is not the answer either. An entirely new system and approach is required.

When we have right wing bigots claiming to be liberals, and liberals claiming to be socialists, we must shirley realise that it is all a nonsense.
Click to expand...

The truth shall set you free - or make you wish you had taken the f blue pill.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Not far off there lol. As long as you know when the propaganda cuts in (which could not be much clearer) then you do get different take on the news plus mixing it with Al-jazeera gives news that we do not get on uk tv.
Click to expand...

We are due to get new channels* in March Jerry.

* I believe two 'conservative' news channels.
 
valenciagill said:
We are due to get new channels* in March Jerry.

* I believe two 'conservative' news channels.
Click to expand...

If they are propaganda channels then it may make it even worse.
Very hard for an unbiased channel to survive as it would be hard to get sponsorship or advertising.

Comes back to the question of media monopolies. Different governments have all failed to uphold the competition rules as their sponsors get their way. Same with the unwillingness to sort out the social media monopolies and online shopping monopolies.
 
Jerryattrick said:
If they are propaganda channels then it may make it even worse.
Very hard for an unbiased channel to survive as it would be hard to get sponsorship or advertising.

Comes back to the question of media monopolies. Different governments have all failed to uphold the competition rules as their sponsors get their way. Same with the unwillingness to sort out the social media monopolies and online shopping monopolies.
Click to expand...
Interesting article in the Grauniad today from George Monbiot re the dangers of unfettered free speech. Coming from him I thought it worth consideration. Plenty of "free speech" champions sponsored by the super rich spreading lies about covid that are causing deaths. Free speech more highly valued than life.
 
Gills 58 said:
Interesting article in the Grauniad today from George Monbiot re the dangers of unfettered free speech. Coming from him I thought it worth consideration. Plenty of "free speech" champions sponsored by the super rich spreading lies about covid that are causing deaths. Free speech more highly valued than life.
Click to expand...
I read that as well and I think George was a bit contradictory to be honest.
It’s all very well and good saying what should be done but not a single solution offered.
Free speech is one thing that sets democracies apart.
If you don’t like the other guys points of view, argue your own.

George claims that the anti vax movement is sponsored by right wing business interests but didn’t come up with a single bit of evidence, preferring to harp back years to the tobacco lobby and those opposing green issues.
George, like most of us, has his own agenda and fits his narrative around it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Monbiot fan but can also see the wood for the trees.
 
Last edited:
George Monbiot is bourgeois twat. He always has been. I met him back in the 90s, he was a twat then, and he still is now.

I started reading his article but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. By the end of the second paragraph he is calling for government to, "ban all outright lies that endanger people's lives". What is this shit?! Isn't is bad enough that we have to contend with government lies? Now he wants the government to control who can say what, and what constitutes an, "outright lie". Fuck me, Monbiot has spread enough lies of his own, the prick.

shotty is spot on when he says, "If you don’t like the other guys points of view, argue your own."
 
Buddha said:
George Monbiot is bourgeois twat. He always has been. I met him back in the 90s, he was a twat then, and he still is now.

I started reading his article but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. By the end of the second paragraph he is calling for government to, "ban all outright lies that endanger people's lives". What is this shit?! Isn't is bad enough that we have to contend with government lies? Now he wants the government to control who can say what, and what constitutes an, "outright lie". Fuck me, Monbiot has spread enough lies of his own, the prick.

shotty is spot on when he says, "If you don’t like the other guys points of view, argue your own."
Click to expand...

So what say you to his point about shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
 
MedwayModernist said:
So what say you to his point about shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
Click to expand...

If you shouted it and there was a stampede where people died then you could be found guilty of manslaughter if proven you shouted it with ill intent.

Even if no one was hurt, you could still find yourself in legal trouble if the police decide to charge you with variations of "Disturbing the Peace" or "Causing disorderly conduct". Nobby would probably have an idea of which law they would charge someone if the shout out caused panic.

None of the charges of disturbing the police or manslaughter directly impacts the right of free speech,
 
shotshy said:
I read that as well and I think George was a bit contradictory to be honest.
It’s all very well and good saying what should be done but not a single solution offered.
Free speech is one thing that sets democracies apart.
If you don’t like the other guys points of view, argue your own.

George claims that the anti vax movement is sponsored by right wing business interests but didn’t come up with a single bit of evidence, preferring to harp back years to the tobacco lobby and those opposing green issues.
George, like most of us, has his own agenda and fits his narrative around it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Monbiot fan but can also see the wood for the trees.
Click to expand...

I can understand where its an industry with something to gain but cannot see where anyone gains from anti vaccing propaganda or was he thinking the vaccine is promoted by the drug companies?

Maybe its why i don't read the guardian by choice, has it become an intellectual illiberal liberal paper promoting the creation of the ministry of truth or more likely it all goes over my head lol.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
If you shouted it and there was a stampede where people died then you could be found guilty of manslaughter if proven you shouted it with ill intent.

Even if no one was hurt, you could still find yourself in legal trouble if the police decide to charge you with variations of "Disturbing the Peace" or "Causing disorderly conduct". Nobby would probably have an idea of which law they would charge someone if the shout out caused panic.

None of the charges of disturbing the police or manslaughter directly impacts the right of free speech,
Click to expand...


As it happens, this, in itself, is a very interesting legal arena. The thought of someone doing such an act and providing sufficient evidence of their intent so to do, and what consequences they were attempting to incite is one that I doubt many have ever come across.

Anybody shouting "fire" (the crowded theatre scenario), assuming they were not mentally unwell etc., would still have an enormous amount of space (no pun intended) to find, or be provided with, mitigation sufficient to ward off a prosecution.

That`s not to say that they wouldn`t be arrested in the first instance (arrest and prosecution are two very different things). Plenty of grounds to arrest but, plenty of grounds also to avoid a prosecution. . Not least of which is that, as far as I can think at this moment, I don`t believe there is any specific legislation to cover that situation.

I can`t cover all the scenarios because much cleverer people than I invest huge amounts of time and study pursuing this sort of legal precedent and associated inchoate liability.

I might well be wrong, but, my guess is that if such an act, culminating in a number of deaths, was committed by a person shouting "fire" and in relation to whom there was an intent to cause some sort of mayhem, it might fall to a High Court or Govt Inquiry to determine and identify responsibility for the consequences. "Responsibility" would be key.

Can`t see any subsequent prosecution alluding to "disturbing the peace" or "causing disorderly conduct" existing or being appropriate, though a situation relating to breach of the peace might be an initial tool to arrest the utterer !


Edited as I meant to say that a) There is a criminal law that would cover "Fire" if shouted on an plane b) Gunners on HM naval ships would get into deep bother if they shouted anything other than "Shoot" !
 
Last edited:
Jerryattrick said:
Thanks for posting that Bud, thats exactly what is going on and is spreading here.
Click to expand...
Yep. The comparison about the attempts to ban the Abigail Shrier transgender book and the fatwa on Salman Rushdie is especially accurate. I think the most self-righteous of self-righteous posters on this board would struggle to explain what the difference is.
 
Buddha said:
Am wondering this morning how the crazies will react to Trump's latest comments where he backtracks from telling the insurgents that he loves them and now says that they "defiled the seat of American democracy", and that they, "don't represent the country"? Will they view this as him simply playing to the gallery and continue to support him? Or will they regard these latest comments as betrayal?
Click to expand...

QAnon shaman freak feels betrayed and willing to testify against Trump:

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...willing-to-testify-at-trump-impeachment-trial
 
It strikes me that plenty on this board are prepared to defend inconvenient minorities though not always the same ones. I note in passing that the one notable act of censorship on this board was supported most strongly by those, who view themselves free of self righteous censorship. Generally I don't think any of us support censorship in general. Do we? I reserve the right to say that I think what you say is wrong, wrongheaded, unkind, or even dangerous. I expect you to keep saying it if you think it right.
 
jogills said:
It strikes me that plenty on this board are prepared to defend inconvenient minorities though not always the same ones. I note in passing that the one notable act of censorship on this board was supported most strongly by those, who view themselves free of self righteous censorship. Generally I don't think any of us support censorship in general. Do we? I reserve the right to say that I think what you say is wrong, wrongheaded, unkind, or even dangerous. I expect you to keep saying it if you think it right.
Click to expand...

!! FREE THE WAYNE KERR 1 NOW !!

!! JUSTICE FOR KERR !!

WE WANT WAYNE, WE WANT WAYNE, MIGHT BE A PAIN BUT WE STILL WANT WAYNE!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.