Censorship and Social Media

ASCPFC said:
I have to think that the press think that, ethically speaking, outing anyone before they're ready is a stretch even for the most gutter press these days. It could easily back fire in many ways too - being cancelled commercially for example.

Just an idea.
Click to expand...
And yet the press have no problem outing politicians who have heterosexual affairs.

My beef with the media is that they should be reporting what has been said in court that day. They have done this ad nauseam with other high profile cases. That doesn't mean that it's true that is for the jury to decide.

If the courts really have not put restrictions in place then this smacks of an establishment cover up or a weak press.

Look at the fuss over the Amber Heard Jonny Depp case. I know it wasn't criminal but they had no problem reporting what each side alleged the other did.

More on point the Lucy Letby trial, Fred West, Rolf Harris, etc,

These Ukrainians maybe lying maybe not. A free press should report the proceedings.
 
Badger11 said:
And yet the press have no problem outing politicians who have heterosexual affairs.

My beef with the media is that they should be reporting what has been said in court that day. They have done this ad nauseam with other high profile cases. That doesn't mean that it's true that is for the jury to decide.

If the courts really have not put restrictions in place then this smacks of an establishment cover up or a weak press.

Look at the fuss over the Amber Heard Jonny Depp case. I know it wasn't criminal but they had no problem reporting what each side alleged the other did.

More on point the Lucy Letby trial, Fred West, Rolf Harris, etc,

These Ukrainians maybe lying maybe not. A free press should report the proceedings.
Click to expand...

When the right get in......A lot of people who have gone along and enforced the woke era need to lose their jobs.

The consequences they visited upon others for years need to be visited upon them......High to low.

The Judiciary and how it's appointed and those that appoint it are just one of the important aspects.
 
Badger11 said:
And yet the press have no problem outing politicians who have heterosexual affairs.

My beef with the media is that they should be reporting what has been said in court that day. They have done this ad nauseam with other high profile cases. That doesn't mean that it's true that is for the jury to decide.

If the courts really have not put restrictions in place then this smacks of an establishment cover up or a weak press.

Look at the fuss over the Amber Heard Jonny Depp case. I know it wasn't criminal but they had no problem reporting what each side alleged the other did.

More on point the Lucy Letby trial, Fred West, Rolf Harris, etc,

These Ukrainians maybe lying maybe not. A free press should report the proceedings.
Click to expand...
They probably will! At the appropriate time when there is no danger of them being accused of perverting the course of justice.
 
Stirlingsays said:
When the right get in......A lot of people who have gone along and enforced the woke era need to lose their jobs.

The consequences they visited upon others for years need to be visited upon them......High to low.

The Judiciary and how it's appointed and those that appoint it are just one of the important aspects.
Click to expand...
What nonsense!

There’s nothing “woke” involved in following the advice of your lawyers, which seems the most probable explanation here.

That advice will be given whatever type of government we have. The Judiciary are the top strata of a deep system of legally trained minds. Whoever selects them can only do so from that pool. A pool which is bound to the law. Not politics. It would require decades of primary legislation to achieve the kind of impact you seek, involving changes that would be extremely unpopular and received with hostility. Thus ensuring any attempts to do so would quickly disappear.

Not a chance!
 
Badger11 said:
And yet the press have no problem outing politicians who have heterosexual affairs.

My beef with the media is that they should be reporting what has been said in court that day. They have done this ad nauseam with other high profile cases. That doesn't mean that it's true that is for the jury to decide.

If the courts really have not put restrictions in place then this smacks of an establishment cover up or a weak press.

Look at the fuss over the Amber Heard Jonny Depp case. I know it wasn't criminal but they had no problem reporting what each side alleged the other did.

More on point the Lucy Letby trial, Fred West, Rolf Harris, etc,

These Ukrainians maybe lying maybe not. A free press should report the proceedings.
Click to expand...
I wondered if this was some kind of stunt designed to out somebody. In that respect, I'm not sure I want people committing crimes and getting what they want out of it. I genuinely wondered if this was originally a media paid for stunt to get the information out there. Or a foreign intelligence plan even. In that case, I'd prefer it to remain out of the press.
However, we need to ask if the PM is a trustworthy person. Ask people you meet, I'm pretty sure there will be a resounding response.
 
ASCPFC said:
I wondered if this was some kind of stunt designed to out somebody. In that respect, I'm not sure I want people committing crimes and getting what they want out of it. I genuinely wondered if this was originally a media paid for stunt to get the information out there. Or a foreign intelligence plan even. In that case, I'd prefer it to remain out of the press.
However, we need to ask if the PM is a trustworthy person. Ask people you meet, I'm pretty sure there will be a resounding response.
Click to expand...
That is a sensible delimitation between two different subjects. The latter having no connection to this thread.
 
ASCPFC said:
I wondered if this was some kind of stunt designed to out somebody. In that respect, I'm not sure I want people committing crimes and getting what they want out of it. I genuinely wondered if this was originally a media paid for stunt to get the information out there. Or a foreign intelligence plan even. In that case, I'd prefer it to remain out of the press.
However, we need to ask if the PM is a trustworthy person. Ask people you meet, I'm pretty sure there will be a resounding response.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible, it wouldn't be the first time. However you reap what you sow. If a politician is not being truthful about their personal life (gay or straight) they can hardly complain if this comes out. If this is brought about by illegal means then the perpetrators deserve to be punished.

If people are saying the public has no right to invade the private lives of the great and the good then it is a discussion worth having. Having what we are seeing is a gradual increase in piece meal restrictions which appear to to only favour the rich and the powerful.

France has had a privacy law for decades and it has been misused successfully by the elite to cover up there misdeeds all under the guise that the law is to protect the public.

Keith Vaz no doubt wishes their was such a law.

www.dailymail.com

Keith Vaz is in hospital after sex and drugs shame report comes out

The Leicester East MP revealed his admission to hospital shortly after a three-year inquiry found he had breached parliamentary rules and recommended he be suspended for six months.
www.dailymail.com www.dailymail.com
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I realise some people would be interested in knowing what lay behind it, but as soon as terrorism or political motives were ruled out, then that interest ought to have evaporated. What else could be of legitimate public interest?

As no DMSA has apparently been issued the conclusion must be that the media have decided not to cover the trial of the accused men voluntarily. I guess that’s because of legal advice that they could run foul of being accused of perverting the course of justice if they published details whilst the trial is being held. I don’t know anymore than anyone else but that seems logical to me.

I have read a lot of conspiracy theories trying to smear Starmer and suggesting he has obtained some kind of super injunction but not seen a shred of actual evidence. If there was any it would have leaked! There are ways.
Click to expand...
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I realise some people would be interested in knowing what lay behind it, but as soon as terrorism or political motives were ruled out, then that interest ought to have evaporated. What else could be of legitimate public interest?

As no DMSA has apparently been issued the conclusion must be that the media have decided not to cover the trial of the accused men voluntarily. I guess that’s because of legal advice that they could run foul of being accused of perverting the course of justice if they published details whilst the trial is being held. I don’t know anymore than anyone else but that seems logical to me.

I have read a lot of conspiracy theories trying to smear Starmer and suggesting he has obtained some kind of super injunction but not seen a shred of actual evidence. If there was any it would have leaked! There are ways.
Click to expand...
The clue is in the words super injunction!, So if not terrorism or political you really don’t think it is newsworthy? Clue, those accused are Ukrainian rent boys….FACT. How did they know his address and car? Lucky guess or just a random attack on any property? Yep ok, you carry on thinking nothing untoward
 
Spiderman said:
The clue is in the words super injunction!, So if not terrorism or political you really don’t think it is newsworthy? Clue, those accused are Ukrainian rent boys….FACT. How did they know his address and car? Lucky guess or just a random attack on any property? Yep ok, you carry on thinking nothing untoward
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it’s newsworthy any more than you or anyone else. Perhaps after the trial we will be better able to judge that. It’s reported the accused are Ukranian, but anything else is speculation.

Just as an aside, do you think we have a right to be informed about the private lives of public figures? Unless that impacts their work in some way.
 
Spiderman said:
So breach of contract or homophobia? Was there a contract in place? Or did they refuse when order was placed?
Click to expand...
They invited the business and accepted the order. Money was exchange. A contract thus existed. They changed their minds after seeing what the buyer wanted on their cake. The cake and everything on it was not theirs. They were merely hired to make it.

Even if their terms and conditions allowed for cancellation for reasons of force majeure, this would not have excused them from cancelling because they objected to a message which wasn’t theirs. They had no responsibility for the message and no interest in it. Their only interest was making a profit from their business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top