Censorship and Social Media

[Wisbech Eagle]

But they had been invited. And booked. For the third year running.

And cancelled. Still the decision of the booker. It’s not the fault of anyone in the choir and they may well be upset but that doesn’t change anything. They cannot insist on being there. It’s not their event.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

A bit like us missing out on Europe years ago because the bin dippers killed a few Italians. Eufa or whoever made a choice. We had to just suck it up !
Bet you wasn’t this forgiving back then wissie.

I was upset but respected that the decision wasn’t ours to make. Just like this year over our place in Europe.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Scope have backed down and re-invited the choir however no news if they will attend (it maybe too late to organise).

Leaving aside the "reason" Scope actually received 2 anonymous complaints. I would ask them why act on anonymous complaints?

If the person (it could only be 1 person) feels that strongly they should put their name to it and stand by there complaint.

That again is entirely within the responsibility of Scope, the booker. If pressure caused UEFA to change their mind and put us in the Europa League then we would have been pleased but we had no way to insist. Forest didn’t admit they made complaints!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So weeks/months of practicing in your own time, for an event that you are, no doubt, very much looking forward to, is taken away from you for a reason nothing to do with you! That’s not punishing you!! How would you describe it then?

Unfortunate. You punish people for doing wrong. They did nothing wrong. They just suffered collateral damage from someone else’s dispute.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

And cancelled. Still the decision of the booker. It’s not the fault of anyone in the choir and they may well be upset but that doesn’t change anything. They cannot insist on being there. It’s not their event.

The question remains - would you be supporting the decision if the booker was a Tommy Robinson supporter who disagreed with someone's opinion?

 

[cryrst]

Unfortunate. You punish people for doing wrong. They did nothing wrong. They just suffered collateral damage from someone else’s dispute.

I believe you argued against collateral damage being correct in other threads.
About a hospital in Gaza ring a bell.
I suppose it’s context is it ?

 

[Runningman]

Scope have backed down and re-invited the choir however no news if they will attend (it maybe too late to organise).

Leaving aside the "reason" Scope actually received 2 anonymous complaints. I would ask them why act on anonymous complaints?

If the person (it could only be 1 person) feels that strongly they should put their name to it and stand by there complaint.

If I were the Choir I’d be telling Scope that they’re too late.

 

[cryrst]

If I were the Choir I’d be telling Scope that they’re too late.

Maybe f*** off would be more apt.
In D minor obviously 😂

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I believe you argued against collateral damage being correct in other threads.
About a hospital in Gaza ring a bell.
I suppose it’s context is it ?

I don’t recall the comment but as collateral damage cannot be anything collateral damage I anticipate that you misunderstood it.

Some collaterals damage in any war might be inevitable but that doesn’t make it correct. Every effort must be made to avoid it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I don’t recall the comment but as collateral damage cannot be anything collateral damage I anticipate that you misunderstood it.

Some collaterals damage in any war might be inevitable but that doesn’t make it correct. Every effort must be made to avoid it.

Must be catching because I don't understand that first sentence at all.

 

[cryrst]

Must be catching because I don't understand that first sentence at all.

A bit like
If you notice this notice you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing🤦

 

[Teddy Eagle]

A bit like
If you notice this notice you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing🤦

That that exists exists in that that that that exists exists in.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Must be catching because I don't understand that first sentence at all.

Typo! Missed a “but”!

 

[Badger11]

And speaking of censorship, yesterday was the first day of a criminal trial and yet there has been a complete media blackout.

 

[HKOwen]

And speaking of censorship, yesterday was the first day of a criminal trial and yet there has been a complete media blackout.

Good old George

There is some reporting but not much, seems judge imposed some kind of reporting restrictions

Am sure a prosecuting barrister will get to the bottom of it so to speak

 

[Spiderman]

Good old George

There is some reporting but not much, seems judge imposed some kind of reporting restrictions

Am sure a prosecuting barrister will get to the bottom of it so to speak

I heard there is an injunction stopping reporting on the case

 

[Badger11]

I heard there is an injunction stopping reporting on the case

If this was a political act then why the media ban.

I think most of us suspect a more personal motive but my question still stands.

Jeremy Thorpe was accused of murder for hire he had to put up with media intrusion before the trial and it was widely reported daily what the witnesses said.

Boris Johnson's complicated personal life had been gone into ad nauseam.

Any number of MPs on trial for various offences have had to to suffer the indignity of the media trawling through their personal lives and reporting on the trial.

Some MP's have been the victim of blackmail and still this has all come out.

And yet with Starmer we get radio silence.

It stinks.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I heard there is an injunction stopping reporting on the case

Where have you heard this?

The only place I read any speculation like this is here. So where are people getting their “information”. Please inform so its reliability can be assessed.

Injunctions are issued by courts. They aren’t given for no reason, so there must be something that convinced a judge one was necessary. Why is this questioned?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If this was a political act then why the media ban.

I think most of us suspect a more personal motive but my question still stands.

Jeremy Thorpe was accused of murder for hire he had to put up with media intrusion before the trial and it was widely reported daily what the witnesses said.

Boris Johnson's complicated personal life had been gone into ad nauseam.

Any number of MPs on trial for various offences have had to to suffer the indignity of the media trawling through their personal lives and reporting on the trial.

Some MP's have been the victim of blackmail and still this has all come out.

And yet with Starmer we get radio silence.

It stinks.

Did Johnson, or any of these other MPs, apply for an injunction and be refused?

If not what is your point?

 

[Badger11]

If a judge has told the media not to report during the trial as it might be prejudicial I can see an argument for that although I don't agree. We have had many high profile trials over the years and I have never heard of a judge stopping the reporting of what is a public trial.

However the real issue is what happens after the verdict. Will the media be allowed to then report what was said during the trial? If not then that is shameful.