Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
ImpSaint said:
The freedom loving left...............Regulate everything, control everything, censor everything (that we don't like) Its all getting a bit communist 2025!
Click to expand...

Big difference between regulating and banning. You're Impishly suggesting ... (any) government intervention as the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

Regulation is a lot more democratic than the uncountable oligarchs' whims - and politics - which are getting even more prevailing. Unbridled capitalism is not going to fix humanity's problems. Market solutions won't address the problems social media creates.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges, OddRiverOakWizards and Archers Road
Archers Road said:
Even the most ardent libertarian wouldn't advocate for unregulated road traffic, nor for the sale of alcohol and drugs to children. Presumably you also approve of protecting children from pornography, or the elderly from exploitation by scammers and dishonest tradesmen etc.
.

Regulation is a fact of life in all civilised societies, but it's no secret that there is always someone looking to profit from exploiting the weakness and vulnerability of their fellow citisens.
Click to expand...

The problem is using those above "good things" to get through wholesale "regulation" of much much more! and then trying anyone that doesn't support our "online safety bill" is supporting ****s when that suspect is a teeny tiny part of what they are trying to railroad through under that guise. but hey-ho. that is politics in a nutshell. Trying to sell your policies with as nice a disguise as possible.
 
BackFromBeyond said:
Big difference between regulating and banning. You're Impishly suggesting ... (any) government intervention as the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

Regulation is a lot more democratic than the uncountable oligarchs' whims - and politics - which are getting even more prevailing. Unbridled capitalism is not going to fix humanity's problems. Market solutions won't address the problems social media creates.
Click to expand...

You are "suggesting" that we are talking about "any" intervention when it is really more and more and more by the day. We will soon be referring to ourselves as we!

Even in your second sentence. Where is the nuance? who said there should be no regulation? Just that there is also an opposite of too much regulation. The second sentence is meaningless because no-one is suggesting no regulation...just the spread and the increasing by the day "rules" that are going much further than the salespitch they use to get them through.
 
ImpSaint said:
Its not new. This stuff has always happened since the dawn of time. Everyone is under more scrutiny as time moves on because there is not a closed shop of pals in charge of media anymore. As the internet has developed more and more of this is viewable and there are way more (growing by the day as well) non legacy outlets that are all out for their cut of the public's time.

So what used to be unseen as long as you could control the media, at which point you could also malign publications like Private Eye etc as uncredible sources now cannot be hidden for long at all.

So back then if you knew some secrets they were only useful if 1 of a few "credible" publications would publish, and even papers that were on the other side than the tip of they had been given often didn't publish things. But now they are competing for clicks with smaller operations as well one man shows that will state things so the big old beasts are as well.

Despite the constant "no-one scrutinising reform" statements the reality is they are more scrutinised than anyone, even government was 30 years ago. Its just that it gets lost in the noise because there is now so much out in the open. There is always an outlet happy to take that leak and immediately run with it!

Boris was more noticeable because it wasn't just his opposition that wanted him out, his own party wanted him out before he even got in. lol. So the boot got stuck in from all sides.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I agree reform are scrutinised that much. I mean Farage will get the coverage when he says ‘it was like an invasion’ etc with the Whitechapel march, but I guess that is their playbook anyway and the publicity they want!
 
Last edited:
ImpSaint said:
You are "suggesting" that we are talking about "any" intervention when it is really more and more and more by the day. We will soon be referring to ourselves as we!

Even in your second sentence. Where is the nuance? who said there should be no regulation? Just that there is also an opposite of too much regulation. The second sentence is meaningless because no-one is suggesting no regulation...just the spread and the increasing by the day "rules" that are going much further than the salespitch they use to get them through.
Click to expand...

Ah, so when you said ‘regulate everything,’ ....you meant it literally. I did assume some hyperbole Imps.

We’ve gone from ‘communist 2025’ to ‘reasonable concerns about regulatory scope’ in a few posts!

At the moment Musk and Zuckerberg et al make unilateral decisions affecting billions. You're worried about democratic regulation being a "slippery slope" to governmental authoritarianism, but you seem less concerned with oligarchic authoritarianism; if your concern is about creeping control, maybe start with the platforms already shaping/warping discourse in real time 24/7... without transparency, oversight, or consent!

Do you think these platforms should be allowed to signal boost misinformation, nab data from minors, or crack down on political speech they don't "like"? Or is any attempt to address those issues already ‘too far’?

But glad there's an agreement that 'some' regulation is necessary. But if so... then we’re not debating whether to regulate - we’re debating how to. That’s a different thrust to the comment you made at the start.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
tomw24 said:
So Andrew is now just a ****, not a royal ****.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Andrew may or may not have screwed Ms Giuffre (he denies it, so who knows the truth?), but she sure as hell has screwed him...

This story will run and run, perhaps he should go to the States and give his evidence, (if proved guilty, punished appropriately), but what are the chances of a fair trial?

Whatever, you have to feel for the victims of the circumstances and hope that what has happened will go some way to prevent any repeats, but the World is full of bad human beings, that don't conform, so there is little chance to prevent similar happenings in the future.
 
SAINTOSPREY said:
It seems to me that Andrew may or may not have screwed Ms Giuffre (he denies it, so who knows the truth?), but she sure as hell has screwed him...

This story will run and run, perhaps he should go to the States and give his evidence, (if proved guilty, punished appropriately), but what are the chances of a fair trial?

Whatever, you have to feel for the victims of the circumstances and hope that what has happened will go some way to prevent any repeats, but the World is full of bad human beings, that don't conform, so there is little chance to prevent similar happenings in the future.
Click to expand...


That's a bit ... poor Andrew.

What were Virginia Giuffre's chances of even getting a trial, let alone a fair one? Over a decade of fighting and being disbelieved, where she faced victim blaming, attacks on her credibility, the mysterious and untimely death of the primary witness for a potential prosecution... many more disadvantages than a privileged and protected member of the British royal family, with unlimited legal resources and surrounded by very shady friends. But she "Sure as hell screwed him"?

The £10m he paid to admit nothing, not face trial and keep claiming the innocence you're left considering wasn't even his money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat and ChilcoSaint
He's not accused of any crimes here so was never going to face any prosecution regardless. Obviously he wouldn't have been daft enough to set foot in the US again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BackFromBeyond
saintrichie123 said:
You must log in or register to see media

Misleading bollocks as usual. The £244m headline is across 7 different councils. The £73m saving is over 25 years, so £2.9m a year. Just 0.2% of Durham's £1.3bn budget.
Reform do love to lie.
Click to expand...
StJabbo1 said:
Something grim going on up north. See Private Eye's ongoing reports on Teesside.
Click to expand...
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/regi...-tale-of-public-wealth-lost-and-private-gain/
"Private Eye’s comprehensively detailed and fully evidenced exposé last week of the Teesworks saga [“Stripped Tees” in No 1660], makes for shocking reading. The story it tells reads like the screenplay for a dark political drama, one in which public money and public assets have been shockingly exploited and public trust has been completely eroded. The scale and gravity of what has been exposed demands a full and independent investigation.

The investigative journalist Richard Brooks of Private Eye is to be congratulated for his public service in his determined unearthing of evidence, despite the best efforts of some to frustrate him in his quest for the facts. His findings reveal a disturbing pattern: flawed and determined decision-making, channelling vast sums of public money in particular directions, resulting in colossal financial benefit for the private developer partners, whilst leaving taxpayers carrying the risk."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BackFromBeyond and milton archer
BackFromBeyond said:
"That's a bit ... poor Andrew.

What were Virginia Giuffre's chances of a fair trial? Over a decade of fighting and being disbelieved, where she faced victim blaming, attacks on her credibility, the mysterious and untimely death of the primary witness for a potential prosecution... many more disadvantages than a privileged and protected member of the British royal family, with unlimited legal resources and surrounded by very shady friends. But she "Sure as hell screwed him"?

The £10m he paid to admit nothing, not face trial and keep claiming the innocence you're left considering wasn't even his money.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, she denied her own right to secure justice by commiting suicide and thus prevented any chance of finding the truth. Andrew is a victim of the circumstances too, doesn't seem to be any doubt that he was guilty of many bad things, especially his choice of friends. Easy to be judgemental when you are mostly only getting one side of the argument. As I said, he should be made to face the music, if he has done wrong, but the Press are making sure he wouldn't get a fair trial, guilty or not. One thought that I had, was that he served in the Falklands War and he said at the time that it had changed him, it could have had a bad effect on his mental awareness, not an excuse perhaps, but may be a reason?
 
BackFromBeyond said:
You're right. But he was never charged with of the accusations, I think that's what Libby is making reference to.
Click to expand...

But was it investigated? I don’t recall the allegations in the media at that time, was it because he was a prince it didn’t get anywhere? Just strange if it wasn’t investigated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back