10 Downing Street "Senior communications aide" attempts to ban Journalists

String said:
Could it possibly just be the case that right of centre comedy is pish?
Click to expand...

:p Well we all have personal opinions on that so, what you like and the next person is probably not going to be the same.
Stereotyping of races and cultures is still funny for me at least. Its been the basis for the beginning of a lot of friendships ive made here in Sweden. More often me being the butt of the jokes until i decide to retaliate with my own cliches.
That is mostly off limits now because we are all "equal" and live in a "fantastical" harmony together.
I'm strongly in the belief that all comedy should be equal, but as we have seen over the past few years, thats just no longer the case. If you dont like it, dont listen to it, or complain about it being naff because XYZ.
Obviously there are sensible limits and we should be able to know them ourselves, all being civilised decent humans being able to tell the difference from "a call to Jihad and race war" over a joke about it.
 
Moley said:
The government can give access to private briefings to whoever they want. Access is a privilege not a right.
Click to expand...

look up hitler to see what that means..........................

Censorship within Nazi Germany included control of all forms of mass communication, which included newspaper, music, literature, radio, and film.[1] The same body also produced and disseminated their own literature which were solely devoted to furthering Nazi ideas and myths
Click to expand...

it always starts small. Restricting the ability of the Media, even Media hostile to your politics to report out and hold your government to scrutiny is the start of the slippery slope to dictatorship. You can laugh and call this sensationalist, but everything has a beginning and hand picking / restricting outlets is the that starting point.

If instead of restricting certain media journo's he said we are going to censor any websites that report stuff that we don't like, would you still be saying the same thing then ? because what he has done is effectively the same thing.
 
wesimmo said:
What's colour got to do with whether someone looks British?
Click to expand...

I'll give you an example, if someone witnesses an incident that the police are interested in and they ask a witness "What did this man (or woman) look like?" The witness is unlikely to reply "British" if the person of interest looked Nigerian or Pakistani, they are likely to say he was a person of colour, he looked like he may have been Pakistani (or Nigerian, or whatever if his features and colour showed him none white), it aids the description and narrows down the options when looking for said person. same as height, weight, sex, blah blah. It's the way it is. The person of interest may well technically be British by documentation but the description would be woefully lacking in content without the detail. Most of the tigers in Chester Zoo may well have been bred in captivity in the UK but the sign over the compound says Indian Tigers, not British tigers. Most red haired people in the UK are probably British, but when describing such a person the descriptor would be aided by saying he / she was a red head...
 
Last edited:
rxodium said:
Blogs by untrained emotionally reactionary nobodies unanswerable to anyone and not having to at least have any kind of standards vomiting their opinions about what they think rather than the facts onto the internet. Oh oh, and some state run propaganda networks run under the guise of being the aforementioned and claiming that those who have to train to be journalists, answer to superiors and meet journalistic standards are fake news. Then like the Russians we can murder the actual journalists, to get them out of the way when they post anything less than flattering about those in power.
Click to expand...

So basically Facebook. :D
 
Moley said:
You invoked Godwin and I claim my £10
Click to expand...

you can claim whatever you want but answer my question

If instead of restricting certain media journo's he said we are going to censor any websites that report stuff that we don't like, would you still be saying the same thing then ? because what he has done is effectively the same thing.
Click to expand...

you probably can't answer or more likely will choose not to answer honestly as it challenges your ideology/political views.

Fundamentally you are saying that you are OK with press restriction i.e censoring of the Media. And yes it is censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."
Click to expand...

it is clearly inconvenient for the current government having an arm of the Media that will challenge and hold their economies of the truth to scrutiny.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I'll give you an example, if someone witnesses an incident that the police are interested in and they ask a witness "What did this man (or woman) look like?" The witness is unlikely to reply "British" if the person of interest looked Nigerian or Pakistani, they are likely to say he was a person of colour, he looked like he may have been Pakistani (or Nigerian, or whatever if his features and colour showed him none white), it aids the description and narrows down the options when looking for said person. same as height, weight, sex, blah blah. It's the way it is. The person of interest may well technically be British by documentation but the description would be woefully lacking in content without the detail. Most of the tigers in Chester Zoo may well have been bred in captivity in the UK but the sign over the compound says Indian Tigers, not British tigers. Most red haired people in the UK are probably British, but when describing such a person the descriptor would be aided by saying he / she was a red head...
Click to expand...

Rubbish, you wouldn't respond British in any case. You'd say white, black or whatever.

British isn't a physical description it's a description of where someone is from.
 
wesimmo said:
Rubbish, you wouldn't respond British in any case. You'd say white, black or whatever.

British isn't a physical description it's a description of where someone is from.
Click to expand...
Err, that's what I said, read it again... :)

"The witness is unlikely to reply "British" if the person of interest looked Nigerian or Pakistani, they are likely to say he was a person of colour, he looked like he may have been Pakistani (or Nigerian, or whatever if his features and colour showed him none white)"
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK, so I used the nationality figuratively, I am no big cat expert and I don't like zoos, it seems they are Sumatran tigers, bred in Cheshire, nonetheless they aren't called English tigers... ;)
Click to expand...

The Sumatran Tiger is a sub-species of tiger, not a nationality...
 
RDM said:
The Sumatran Tiger is a sub-species of tiger, not a nationality...
Click to expand...


Ok, maybe it is, but despite all this pedantry, when someone sees what may be a third generation British man that looks Indian, Japanese or Chinese they describe them as such, and in my experience at least they don't describe them as British, although that may well be what's on their birth certificate and passport. Which is where all this started with wessimo's question of: "What's colour got to do with whether someone looks British?"
 
Roar87 said:
Obama said we would be back of the queue, we aren't. We were told that it could lead to World War 3, it won't. We were told there would be an immediate emergency budget, there wasn't one. The government spent £15m on a leaflet campaign promoting Remain which the Leave campaign couldn't do. Let's pretend it was the Leave side pushing lies though that edged it.
Click to expand...

Three years on and you are still posting the same lies which have been debunked over and over? When will you ever learn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom