Censorship and Social Media

[Wisbech Eagle]

“ was it arson?” Wissie 2026

Only because I was unaware of any event.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I know that. Which is why the lack of reporting must be due to self restraint of some kind.

Self restraint in a case concerning three rent boys accused of starting fires. Why would that require any more restraint than any other case which they report on?

 

[georgenorman]

They were refusing to honour a contract. What was involved in the contract being immaterial. That is, in my opinion, an important principal.

For the umpteenth time, they were not charged with any sort of contract breach. They were charged with discriminating against gay right agitator, Gareth Lee, because he was a homosexual. The lower courts did their best to convict the bakers despite it being bleeding obvious that they were not discriminating against him because he was gay. The higher courts threw the case out. The Ashers objected to the propaganda that they were asked to put on the cake, they would have happily made him a cake with no message on it. They would have refused anyone of any sexual persuasion if they asked for a similar message.

 

[Spiderman]

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.

When there is a possible national security issue, yes I do. What were your views on Boris’s personal life being made public? “It is reported they are Ukrainian “ do you not believe this? Speculation!, they are on grindr advertising their “services”….fact

 

[Spiderman]

Only because I was unaware of any event.

Really! For someone who knows so much about US politics you seem to be blind to what’s going on here. I cannot believe you were unaware of this event

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Really! For someone who knows so much about US politics you seem to be blind to what’s going on here. I cannot believe you were unaware of this event

Then you are wrong.

I follow US politics because it has a much greater overall significance than ours. The going ons yesterday over Starmer I find ridiculous. If something major happens I follow it but not just tittle tattle or character assassinations.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Then you are wrong.

I follow US politics because it has a much greater overall significance than ours. The going ons yesterday over Starmer I find ridiculous. If something major happens I follow it but not just tittle tattle or character assassinations.

How about him lying about Mandelson's appointment? Tittle tattle or character assassination?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

When there is a possible national security issue, yes I do. What were your views on Boris’s personal life being made public? “It is reported they are Ukrainian “ do you not believe this? Speculation!, they are on grindr advertising their “services”….fact

As I said, if it impacts their work then interest is legitimate. If it doesn’t, it isn’t.

Did Johnson want, or try, to keep his private life a secret? Much of it wasn’t private. Marriage and birth records are in the public domain.

I have never looked at “Grindr”! I am only vaguely aware of its existence. Why, when I had not heard of them before yesterday, would you expect me to know they advertised there?

If that’s true it makes them appear to be part of a world I know nothing about. Nevertheless, it also has nothing at all with this case, even if they try to present it as some kind of motivation. Committing any crime cannot be justified by anything else. It stands alone.

This stinks of a failed blackmail attempt to me.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How about him lying about Mandelson's appointment? Tittle tattle or character assassination?

Both. He denies lying anyway. That the appointment was rushed and an error is obviously true.

What nobody is discussing is why this might have been thought a tactically clever move and worth the risk.

The unspoken elephant in the room being Trump and how to close a trade deal with such a capricious character.

 

[Spiderman]

As I said, if it impacts their work then interest is legitimate. If it doesn’t, it isn’t.

Did Johnson want, or try, to keep his private life a secret? Much of it wasn’t private. Marriage and birth records are in the public domain.

I have never looked at “Grindr”! I am only vaguely aware of its existence. Why, when I had not heard of them before yesterday, would you expect me to know they advertised there?

If that’s true it makes them appear to be part of a world I know nothing about. Nevertheless, it also has nothing at all with this case, even if they try to present it as some kind of motivation. Committing any crime cannot be justified by anything else. It stands alone.

This stinks of a failed blackmail attempt to me.

🤣🤣

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Both. He denies lying anyway. That the appointment was rushed and an error is obviously true.

What nobody is discussing is why this might have been thought a tactically clever move and worth the risk.

The unspoken elephant in the room being Trump and how to close a trade deal with such a capricious character.

Why it was thought a good idea came up earlier but was ignored.
Still, it's a relief to hear it's all Trump's fault: there are some constants in life.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Why it was thought a good idea came up earlier but was ignored.
Still, it's a relief to hear it's all Trump's fault: there are some constants in life.

Who said it was Trump’s fault?

He is the POTUS and, as incomprehensible as that might be, we have to get through 2 more years unless he resigns or is forced out. When we would get Vance, who is conceivably worse.

Being pragmatic in these circumstances is completely understandable. The time to say out loud what is obviously thought by most world leaders comes after his ability to seek revenge has gone.

It’s not his fault. He needs doctors, not condemnation. It’s the fault of the system that allowed it to happen. A system no longer fit for purpose.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Who said it was Trump’s fault?

He is the POTUS and, as incomprehensible as that might be, we have to get through 2 more years unless he resigns or is forced out. When we would get Vance, who is conceivably worse.

Being pragmatic in these circumstances is completely understandable. The time to say out loud what is obviously thought by most world leaders comes after his ability to seek revenge has gone.

It’s not his fault. He needs doctors, not condemnation. It’s the fault of the system that allowed it to happen. A system no longer fit for purpose.

So it's not his fault but he's to blame anyway. If not why mention him.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So it's not his fault but he's to blame anyway. If not why mention him.

He needs help, but he is still the POTUS and that matters, whoever it might be.

Managing our relationship with the USA, both in the short term and the long, demands pragmatic decision making.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

He needs help, but he is still the POTUS and that matters, whoever it might be.

Managing our relationship with the USA, both in the short term and the long, demands pragmatic decision making.

Appointing someone who's already been booted out twice is hardly the height of pragmatism and if he was genuinely the best candidate then we really are in a sorry state.

 

[HKOwen]

Appointing someone who's already been booted out twice is hardly the height of pragmatism and if he was genuinely the best candidate then we really are in a sorry state.

The other candidate was George Osbourne FFS

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Appointing someone who's already been booted out twice is hardly the height of pragmatism and if he was genuinely the best candidate then we really are in a sorry state.

Twice? According to him it wasn’t even once!

The pragmatism comes from us.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Twice? According to him it wasn’t even once!

The pragmatism comes from us.

If he said something it must be true.
There's no pragmatism in appointing someone who's proved to be wrong 'un.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If he said something it must be true.
There's no pragmatism in appointing someone who's proved to be wrong 'un.

Was it “proved” at that time or just rumoured? Rumours that he was obviously denying whilst his connections within the Trump world were well established.

It was certainly a foul up, caused by the constraint of wanting someone in post by the date of the inauguration and him lying. When dealing with a character as unpredictable, unforgiving and revengeful as Trump finding an edge makes sense and it seems the need to do that over rode common sense.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Was it “proved” at that time or just rumoured? Rumours that he was obviously denying whilst his connections within the Trump world were well established.

It was certainly a foul up, caused by the constraint of wanting someone in post by the date of the inauguration and him lying. When dealing with a character as unpredictable, unforgiving and revengeful as Trump finding an edge makes sense and it seems the need to do that over rode common sense.

True enough but there are many dodgy heads of state and we as a country don't need to be appointing dubious characters to every ambassadorial post.