Politics British Politics

[Redav]

Regarding my earlier post, as if by magic this has just landed - an exemplar of misrepresentation.

BBC ‘doctored’ Trump speech, internal report reveals

The BBC “doctored” a Donald Trump speech by making him appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riot, according to an internal whistleblowing memo seen by The Telegraph

 

[Redav]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Regarding my earlier post, as if by magic this has just landed - an exemplar of misrepresentation.

BBC ‘doctored’ Trump speech, internal report reveals

The BBC “doctored” a Donald Trump speech by making him appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riot, according to an internal whistleblowing memo seen by The Telegraph

It works on those with limited cognitive capabilities, biases and selective memory.

Which makes for a big enough portion of the population.

They will/may/might apologize later, in a very discreet way, or retract in a similar way. Just a few words to say "woopsie, moving on", opposed to the hours of repeated lies.
Put the two far away enough, time wise, and people won't even understand what the apology or retraction refers to. Which isn't the point of the retraction/apology anyway; it isn't to make the audience more aware and educated, but to clear the name of the media that published the piece to avoid any litigious fallbacks.

 

[Mike1976]

I hope the police wasn't too busy bullying British nationals to welcome another boatload of new welfare recipients ashore unobstructed

Tommy Robinson found not guilty of terror offence for failing to give police access to his phone at Channel Tunnel

Police had demanded access to his iPhone under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act

news.sky.com

 

[primer]

No eye contact, dramatic.

 

[Redav]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[muck]

By the way … Here's something I've utterly failed to understand: Met Police says it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents

Never mind the absurdity of investigating "non-crime" for a moment (particularly non-crime "hate incidents")—how on earth does a British police force have authority to decide what it does and doesn't investigate?
Surely, UK law enforcement agencies have to enforce the law of the land, whatever it is?

 

[Mike1976]

Surely, UK law enforcement agencies have to enforce the law of the land, whatever it is?

The priorities, like the law, is whatever the establishment needs it to be at the time.

 

[muck]

The priorities, like the law, is whatever the establishment needs it to be at the time.

All sarcasm aside, I'm genuinely interested in the technicalities. What's the legal foundation for a police force to enable itself to investigate actions not specified by the law? (I'm assuming self-enablement because they now say they won't do it any more.)

 

[Fluff]

All sarcasm aside, I'm genuinely interested in the technicalities. What's the legal foundation for a police force to enable itself to investigate actions not specified by the law? (I'm assuming self-enablement because they now say they won't do it any more.)

Can’t really explain it, but it was the met who asked for the law on non crime hate incidents….government adopted their definition. Then they arrested the comic writer at Heathrow for a tweet about trans, and now they don’t think it’s a good idea. Meanwhile mr stabby tours the U.K. practicing his skills….

 

[Mike1976]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

One could argue a "thoughts police" going after nebulous "thought crimes" could have a purpose of sort, like in the case of terrorism. So, for the MET to ask for laws to be made in that direction would be sensible.

However it appears to not have been the case, at least regarding the motivation behind it. It seems whoever requested that law was more interested in dealing with a specific group of people who had wrong views/thoughts/behaviors/words/etc... against another set of people.

As far as we know, since it appears to have been reported on in a very one sided way, only one relatively specific group of people got targeted or found themselves at the receiving end of such law.

So... one might indeed wonder. What was the point, what was the goal of such law. Especially considering, as muck and I have have noted in previous posts, the name of the law itself is a chest of absurdities, but actual crimes are still committed by repeat offenders as exemplified by the various Stabber McStabfaces going around.

Priority wise, perhaps a country should first focus and deal with actual crime before thinking about "non-crime incidents".

 

[Mike1976]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Needless to say the "the allies were antifa" crowd aren't happy with that, and very prompt to berate that veteran.

 

[Hiryu2.0]

 

[Ivan le Fou]

British related because the BBC did the thing.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Unfortunately, but in no way surprising, people will nonetheless cling to the version originally posted by the BBC, even though it got proven to be demonstrably false.

 

[Mike1976]

British related because the BBC did the thing.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Unfortunately, but in no way surprising, people will nonetheless cling to the version originally posted by the BBC, even though it got proven to be demonstrably false.

If you're fighting "fascism"* you don't have to be factual



* Subject to frequent change

 

[Fluff]

Update:
Starmer issued warning to one of his cabinet not to be plotting against him
Streeting denied it
Starmer then announced no-one had issued anything
Streeting came out of it looking professional.
Chancellor told us last week income tax will go up in the budget - next week.
After the above plotting thing, PM has now decided he cant risk a tax rise(no rises was a manifesto promise)
So chancellor now announced the 'black hole' is much smaller than thought(last week)
So she says she never said income tax was going up, and in fact she doesn't need to to go up, never needed it, doesn't know what people are talking about.
So now looking for ways to raise 20-25BN from minor taxes. Which is not easy.
But we are going to remove the 2 child limit on benefits, a few BN a year.

And 4M people of working age don't even need to look for work, but we need migrants.

Economy up 0.1% population up 0.2%

Anyone see any issues?

oh and we all love the BBC, because meh, Trump bad. But we sacked 2 people for 'editing' trumps speech.

 

[downsizer]

Yous lot can chimp all you want about the BBC, but I'd take it over almost all other media sources.....The left think it's too right, the right think it's too left...therefore IMO it must be doing something right.

 

[downsizer]

No probs Redav.

I live here in the UK and get around the place a bit. I also note the origin and content of many of the posts about the UK and have to be honest when I say it doesn't tend to reflect the reality of what it's like on the ground here. And that's me being kind. Sure, there is an underlying malaise across the country, but what you see in the press and other outlets is there "for the clicks", and nothing drives clicks like The Latest Outrage.

Social Media (amongst others) amplifies the extremes and presents a hugely distorted view of the situation - and that's just for the real stuff. There is an increasing amount of fabricated media added into this. The AI slop is getting better but still has many giveaways, and there will come a time when it is better curated and becomes really difficult to call out what it is. We are reaching the point where the Internet becomes wholly untrustworthy. I'm not so sure these days that if it were it to collapse into disrepute it would be a "bad thing" anymore. I grew up when "The News" was about "reporting the situation", not "offering an opinion" on it (or, more dangerously, misrepresenting it). There was also the truth, not moronic sh!te like my truth. Good luck finding basic objectivity in the modern journalist.

I just wish that there was a bit more cynicism exercised by viewers regarding this type of content. For example - look at the posting history of the author. Real people don't tend to post almost exclusively about a single topic - especially inflammatory ones. Viewers need to ask themselves - who stands to gain from their narrative?

I'm not a Mod on here, but it's fair to say I'd be sorely tempted to nuke a sh!t load of the posts & links I see here on a daily basis purely because they'd deserve it for being the clearly fake pish that they are. But that runs counter to Freedom of Speech and of Expression and risks avoiding and attempting to address the underlying issues. In my dealings I always counsel 'be careful what you wish for' - that nugget of ancient wisdom also applies here because this "freedom" can have a powerful effect on others when abused. People are (should be) free to say what they want - but be prepared to be robustly challenged and for having any egregious lies being called out for what they are.

This is frankly the best post I've seen here in years. And the fact that far too many posters on here fall for/post this clickbait pish annoys me no end.