British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Emma Barnett, gaslighting the audience on the Today Programme:
"this wave of violence started after false information was shared on social media about the identity and motivation of the alleged killer".
Dunno, man, that statement is correct, isn't it? I appreciate context is VERY important here though.
I do hope all these rioters and nazis get the fullest sentences possible.
isn't it kinda true though? the suspect was reported as a muslim refugee, in the early hours, by many social media accounts.
Ofc police not clarifying it immediatly was a huge mistake as well but you know, it "looks bad" to indicate the religion, ethnicity and citizenship status of a suspect for the left.
Police immediatly going with "he was born in the UK", without additional information, didn't help either
I dont think the police shoud rush to make statements
I do think social media needs regulating and something is coming
Under Britain’s Online Safety Act, years in the making, platforms will have a duty to “take robust action” against illegal content. That includes content that incites violence or which is related to “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.”
Platforms are meant to prevent illegal content appearing on the platforms in the first place — and to act quickly to remove it if it does appear.
Failing to meet these obligations could see social media firms face fines of up to £18 million — or 10 percent of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater — by media regulator Ofcom.
But crucially, the act's provisions on illegal content only come into effect around the end of 2024. And Britain’s existing laws on inciting violence stem from its 1986 public order act, which predates social media by decades — and so require police to comb platforms for potential breaches
Police should tell people what they know about suspects as soon as they confirm information, everytime ethnicity/religion/sex/age/sexual leaning can be material to the motive of heinous crimes.
And when suspects are white heterosexual christians or atheists we always get to know that IMMEDIATLY.
And media should put ethnicity/religion and so on *in the headlines* , as that's by far the most sought after information every time, and we are accostumed by now to presume it's non-white and minority religion when relevant everytime they don't immediatly tell us so, because that's how it is 95%+ of the times.
Or, they don't tell people and people get angry, but then you don't get to blame "russian misinformation" for that.
As for social media regulation, i don't know how it works when a platform is international and some countries want to censor some content that is legal in most other places (i genuinely don't know). Do they ban the content on an IP of the poster basis? IP of the reader? something else?
For sure i suppose you are AGAINST the idea that say , Hungary writes a law against homosexuals publicity and then all social media worldwide has to remove all LGBT content right? i suppose you would be against that.
As for the specific intention to ban content that "incites violence" i suppose you understand the problem is "what EXACTLY is incitement", because we wouldn't be tgalking about this forum where i have to self-censor because boundaries are unclear, we are talking major international platforms.
Do you agree a rule should be 100% transparent to be enforceable? and that's the problem with content censorship in most cases (not all), the exact precise boundaries. If among 100 adults 95 aren't obviously in agreement without a fuss about something being incitement or not, how are you supposed to enforce it? and if the answer is "to be safe remove most stuff" well that's exactly what censors love and what would destroy public discourse, especially when it's specifically aimed at only one political side.
Because we both know that britain online safety act won't be enforced on the pro Hamas people, even if any talk about a right of palestinians to wage war against Israel is 101 racial and religious based incitement to violence.
It's clear being explicitly pro any form of violent intifada would fall fair and square under the banned content, but you and I know it won't be applied at such.
‘Tommy Robinson’ is beginning to look like a busted flush. Already he’s being accused on X by the far right of issuing orders while basking in the sun in Cyprus, with all expenses probably paid by his friends in Russia.
isn't it kinda true though? the suspect was reported as a muslim refugee, in the early hours, by many social media accounts.
Ofc police not clarifying it immediatly was a huge mistake as well but you know, it "looks bad" to indicate the religion, ethnicity and citizenship status of a suspect for the left.
Police immediatly going with "he was born in the UK", without additional information, didn't help either
Dunno, man, that statement is correct, isn't it? I appreciate context is VERY important here though.
It is not correct, it is one of many potential hypothetical proximal causes. As Luciom states, another potential hypothetical proximal cause is that police chose to withhold the identity of the attacker when they knew misinformation was being spread online. They then released selective information, and eventually the court revealed the full details. Perhaps if they had released information earlier, the violence could have been prevented or curtailed.
The only thing we can say with a high degree of certainty is that the violence was caused by a second-generation migrant murdering children - this is the ultimate cause, and had this not happened, then it is highly likely their wouldn't have been any riots.
At this stage, proximate causes are all speculative and need supporting with evidence - that's why it is gaslighting.
Emma Barnett, gaslighting the audience on the Today Programme:
"this wave of violence started after false information was shared on social media about the identity and motivation of the alleged killer".
That’s exactly what did happen. Social media went viral with a false Arabic name and immigrant status for him.
And you repeated half of this lie a few posts up in this thread.
The only thing we can say with a high degree of certainty is that the violence was caused by a second-generation migrant murdering children - this is the ultimate cause, and had this not happened, then it is highly likely their wouldn't have been any riots..
This is a truly awful post, but we should expect it from this poster.
If the Jews hadnt been in charge of the banks the holocaust wouldn’t have happened, ergo it was all the Jews fault.
It is not correct, it is one of many potential hypothetical proximal causes. As Luciom states, another potential hypothetical proximal cause is that police chose to withhold the identity of the attacker when they knew misinformation was being spread online. They then released selective information, and eventually the court revealed the full details. Perhaps if they had released information earlier, the violence could have been prevented or curtailed.
The only thing we can say with a high degree
I wouldn't call it gaslightining because it happened. I mean if there are several concurring possible concauses of a social events, only highlightining those that are politically favorable to you is normal politics.
It's actually possible that if police had told the population immediatly (as soon as they had that piece of information) that the en flagrante suspect (only saying "suspect" minimizes the chances he is actually guilty, which in fact as we know those are exceptionally high although an insanity defense is still possible) was a christian second generation subsaharian minor individual (and a british citizen, which they said), the collective rage would have been lower and fewer or none riots would have happened.
But police not doing that just opened the way for nefarious individuals to lie on social media, and that happened, and it's bad that it happened. Ofc that doesn't justify in any way or form censorship.
Really unclear if race alone would have motivated violence to the same extent, given we have evidence specific riots were religiously (and not racially) motivated. And there is no lack of white, or white-passing, muslims in the UK
Really unclear if race alone would have motivated violence to the same extent, given we have evidence specific riots were religiously (and not racially) motivated. And there is no lack of white, or white-passing, muslims in the UK
The "religious motivation" is merely a proxy for racism. You don't live here and don't (or are pretending not to) understand this.
It's obvious the driving force behind the far right terrorist rights is racism, and we know this because there are never any such events when a white person kills children.
Btw jalfrezi, the judge that decided not to apply protection to the suspect name and whereabouts even if minor said exactly that:
"Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum," Menary said in Liverpool Crown Court.
Btw jalfrezi, the judge that decided not to apply protection to the suspect name and whereabouts even if minor said exactly that:
"Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum," Menary said in Liverpool Crown Court.
Not sure what your point is - the judge clearly understood how the forces of the far right would seek to exploit the killings through misinformation, and took steps to publicise the killer's non-Muslim identity. It's a pity it didn't happen sooner.
My point is that police should learn from this and IMMEDIATLY give all ethnicity/religious/sex/citizenship information about suspects of violent crimes in the future the moment they confirm it.
And media should clearly state the same in headlines when talking about those events, in the future. And stop hiding that information, when available, deep in the article when it's a minority suspect.
I disagree and think the current approach is the best compromise.
Do you really want to read in the vast majority of media crime reports that the accused is a white male? Or are you suggesting their identity should only be revealed when they're a minorty?
Only a fool believes there's a causal link between race and crime, so why would race be included in media crime reports? You might as well include their shoe size.
yes of course they should tell us if he is white.
Scotland police just did that, they appear to be learning from the recent incidents
In an unusual move by Police Scotland, the force announced the suspect they had arrested and charged was white and local to the Stirling area.
Chief Inspector Liam Harman said: "We are aware of speculation and false information circulating on social media regarding this incident. I would urge people not to add to this speculation."
John Swinney also stated it was an isolated incident with "no wider threat to the public".
@Luciom. Yes I read about that case. How do you view the false information out by 'Tommy Robinson' and his associates?
I think it's bad to lie for political advantage, but it's so common everywhere in politics i can't say i am surprised at all, nor i won't spend too much time decrying it as that would be the only thing a person can do with his day, as common as it is.
That is, if it happened (media lies all the times as well), and i am not going to waste time fact checking media on every topic, but i don't believe them on their words either, i have to limit my truth-seeking to either salient events, or events that interest me enough
The media doesn't deliberately lie about someone's name and place of origin.
Stop lying and trying to equate Tommy Robinson with the MSM (though one does tacitly support the other).
