UK General Election 2017

[Rhiannon]

Nice.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/laura-kuenssberg-bodyguard-abuse-female-political-journalist-abuse

[wigginhall]

Keunssberg becomes star of Labour conference.
The ultimate BBC self reference.

This is sick, Vlad.   You can't dismiss all the abuse of women in politics as something self-referential, or argue that LK is a star.  FFS, she has a bodyguard.

Just to add that I think she misrepresented Corbyn badly over the shoot-to-kill policy, but that's not an excuse for abuse. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is sick, Vlad.   You can't dismiss all the abuse of women in politics as something self-referential, or argue that LK is a star.  FFS, she has a bodyguard.

Just to add that I think she misrepresented Corbyn badly over the shoot-to-kill policy, but that's not an excuse for abuse.

She has become the story..
Any criticism of keunssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse.
It's just another attempt to silence dissent. Keunssberg is an immensely and peculiarly powerful Journalist

[Rhiannon]

No, she reports the story. What's happening is that both far left and far right want to silence reporting of opinion that they don't agree with through intimidation and the threat of violence, to the point where the BBC sees a need to employ protection. And not at a Britain First rally. At the Labour Conference.

[Nearly Sane]

She has become the story..
Any criticism of keunssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse.
It's just another attempt to silence dissent. Keunssberg is an immensely and peculiarly powerful Journalist

In which Vlad further extends his support for threats of violence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad further extends his support for threats of violence.

How is criticism of a powerful mover and shaker support for violence?

[Nearly Sane]

How is criticism of a powerful mover and shaker support for violence?

Because it isn't tgat. Just as it isn't 'criticism of a poweful mover and shaker' when people sent threats of violence  to Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, Joanna Cherry, or Diane Abbott. That you downplay this sort of stuff seems to me deeply misogynistic and disturbing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, she reports the story. What's happening is that both far left and far right want to silence reporting of opinion that they don't agree with through intimidation and the threat of violence, to the point where the BBC sees a need to employ protection. And not at a Britain First rally. At the Labour Conference.

Yes and those people would do that anyway.
No.......she is the story.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes and those people would do that anyway.
No.......she is the story.

Yeah, just as Jo Cox was the story.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it isn't tgat. Just as it isn't 'criticism of a poweful mover and shaker' when people sent threats of violence  to Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, Joanna Cherry, or Diane Abbott. That you downplay this sort of stuff seems to me deeply misogynistic and disturbing.

What has that got to do with me? How have I downplayed this.?

[Nearly Sane]

What has that got to do with me? How have I downplayed this.?

You are downplaying threats of violence as 'criticism'. You appear to think it's ok to threaten people with rape.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are downplaying threats of violence as 'criticism'. You appear to think it's ok to threaten people with rape.

No I'm not downplaying anything. I have not condemned your condemnation and I certainly condemn threats of rape.
I condemn all wrong doing especially those who see the masses as cyphers in a journalistic fantasy and on this occasion you for coming up with the biggest steaming pile of shite you've ever mustered.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not downplaying anything. I have not condemned your condemnation and I certainly condemn threats of rape.
I condemn all wrong doing especially those who see the masses as cyphers in a journalistic fantasy and on this occasion you for coming up with the biggest steaming pile of shite you've ever mustered.

Yes, you have you have said it is criticism. That's what you called it. Threats of rape and violence ate to you, criticism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since you are messing around with posts I'm afraid I'm out of here.

Best wishes to all.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Nearly Sane]

Since you are messing around with posts I'm afraid I'm out of here.

Best wishes to all.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

No one has messed around with your posts. 

You on the other hand have equated threats of rape to violence.

[Sebastian Toe]

Since you are messing around with posts I'm afraid I'm out of here.

Best wishes to all.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Now is that out of here as in this thread or out of here as in this forum?
Whichever one it is, is it indefinitely?
 

[jeremyp]

I think the headline overly dramatic but the demographics of the election interesting



https://capx.co/can-the-tories-save-themselves-from-demographic-disaster/

You have to take all these things with a pinch of salt. Don't forget that the UK General election was a secret ballot. Nobody knows who voted for whom. For all we know Theresa May could have voted for Labour in a desperate attempt to pass the Brexit buck.

The only way to find out about demographics is to do surveys and these are subject to all the usual problems of sample bias and lying that we always see.

[jeremyp]

No, she reports the story.

Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.

I became convinced of her lack of impartiality on election night. Watch her in the hour or so after the exit poll as it became clear that the Tories had blown it. She was almost in tears and clearly furious. Her comments to some of the Tories on the coverage was massively impartial - her attitude was one of fury at them for blowing the election which she so clearly wanted the Tories to win.

I think all journalists have their own views - the problems start when the stop being professional and their views are clear for all to see.

[Nearly Sane]

Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.

She isn't getting a bodyguard because some people don't trust her. I think there are serious questions about whether she should have sacked but don't see that as a justification for abuse.

[Rhiannon]

She isn't getting a bodyguard because some people don't trust her. I think there are serious questions about whether she should have sacked but don't see that as a justification for abuse.

Yes, this is my view too.

[Udayana]

Yes, you have you have said it is criticism. That's what you called it. Threats of rape and violence ate to you, criticism

Vlad did not say that, and it does not logically follow from his statements, also he has explicitly stated that he does not support the threats. So your statement above is a misrepresentation, probably due to misunderstanding or extrapolating from an interpretation he did not intend.

Logically, in fact, he is stating the inverse. viz: "Criticism" is being labelled as "threats of violence" incorrectly, not "threats of rape and violence are criticism". He says nothing about any actual threats that may have been made.

You could well have proved him right if he had actually validly criticised LK instead of blathering about in his usual manner.

imo LK does a great job overall, and certainly should have support and bodyguard(s) given the circumstances.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad did not say that, and it does not logically follow from his statements, also he has explicitly stated that he does not support the threats. So your statement above is a misrepresentation, probably due to misunderstanding or extrapolating from an interpretation he did not intend.

Logically, in fact, he is stating the inverse. viz: "Criticism" is being labelled as "threats of violence" incorrectly, not "threats of rape and violence are criticism". He says nothing about any actual threats that may have been made.

You could well have proved him right if he had actually validly criticised LK instead of blathering about in his usual manner.

imo LK does a great job overall, and certainly should have support and bodyguard(s) given the circumstances.

He's called all of what has been addressed to Kuenssberg criticism. So it means that any threats of violence and rape she has received is 'criticism'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He's called all of what has been addressed to Kuenssberg criticism. So it means that any threats of violence and rape she has received is 'criticism'.

No he hasn't. He said in #1527 that  "any criticism of Kuenssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse", which is the complete opposite of saying "everything addressed to her, including threats, is criticism.

[Nearly Sane]

No he hasn't. He said in #1527 that  "any criticism of Kuenssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse", which is the complete opposite of saying "everything addressed to her, including threats, is criticism.

except his whole premise from the start is that there is only criticism.


There is a better case made here though Craig is somewhat partial and, I think, doesn't recognise that an accumulation of possible spoken threats by various individuals , to which he has no access, and which are not individually sufficient for prosecution, might feel like.


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/manufactured-smears-establishment/