UK General Election 2017

[Udayana]

So, in the same way as you attacked Vlad, you think Craig Murray supports threats of violence and rape as they are only a form of criticism?

No one apart from LK, the BBC and the police know details about the threats - we must take on trust (or not) that they are taking actions based on real events.

Corbyn is fine with her, his supporters should follow his example.

[Nearly Sane]

So, in the same way as you attacked Vlad, you think Craig Murray supports threats of violence and rape as they are only a form of criticism?

No one apart from LK, the BBC and the police know details about the threats - we must take on trust (or not) that they are taking actions based on real events.

Corbyn is fine with her, his supporters should follow his example.

No, I think Craig's at least made an effort to justify it and not personalise it and assume that it's about 'criticism'. He's asked at least for the information though I don't see that not getting a reply from LK tells him that much.  I think he indulges in default conspiracy thinking.


I think that there is a generic question about the protection of public figures that we need to address and that it isn't helpful to argue that if someone has been assigned a bodyguard that it is somehow to silence criticism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, I think Craig's at least made an effort to justify it and not personalise it and assume that it's about 'criticism'. He's asked at least for the information though I don't see that not getting a reply from LK tells him that much.  I think he indulges in default conspiracy thinking.

I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards. It seems reasonable to ask for evidence from those making the claims if you can't find evidence on-line.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online

I think that there is a generic question about the protection of public figures that we need to address and that it isn't helpful to argue that if someone has been assigned a bodyguard that it is somehow to silence criticism.

I think it is appalling that men and women are subject to so much on-line abuse for  challenging opinions - essentially doing their jobs. If criticism of Laura was not silenced by generalising all criticism as threats, then the argument presumably fails.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards.

On the Media Show (BBC R4) a few minutes ago, Nick Robinson said that he had a bodyguard during the Scottish referendum campaign.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the Media Show (BBC R4) a few minutes ago, Nick Robinson said that he had a bodyguard during the Scottish referendum campaign.

Nick Robinson got a lot of flak on the basis that he was a young Conservative and President of the Oxford Conservative Association. So he was an easy target for those complaining of right wing bias. However I never felt that when he was BBC political editor - he always seemed pretty fair an unbiased, albeit imprinting his personality (but not his political bias) onto the role.

I don't get the same feeling with LK - she really does come across to me as overly willing to accept right wing opinions and to challenge left wing ones. Somehow she seems to stamp her 'personality' on the role by giving away too much of her own political views. And this is all very strange because her actual political views are far less overtly clear from her background (unlike Nick Robinson), yet they somehow seem more obvious when she is in the role.

And it goes without saying that none of this justifies whatsoever any abuse or threats levelled against her.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards. It seems reasonable to ask for evidence from those making the claims if you can't find evidence on-line.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online
I think it is appalling that men and women are subject to so much on-line abuse for  challenging opinions - essentially doing their jobs. If criticism of Laura was not silenced by generalising all criticism as threats, then the argument presumably fails.

Absolutely it's reasonable to ask the question but in coming to a decision about it, without the info, and adding in the anti semitism part we are back at conspiracy theory.


Agree with you that the idea that this was going to silence criticism was, if any one had it, stupid and categorically wrong now. However, I think the idea that it can be used to portray this as 'what the left dors' and has been, see Spectator on this, is much more of a worry but that doesn't need a conspiracy just people seeking to spin.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On the Media Show (BBC R4) a few minutes ago, Nick Robinson said that he had a bodyguard during the Scottish referendum campaign.

Thanks. It would be interesting to compare how Nick's bodyguard was reported by various media outlets vs how LK's bodyguard was reported in the media.

LK might well feel the same way about a bodyguard as Nick did , and it is just a precaution by the BBC rather than something she felt she needed.

I think sections of the media use these events to discredit party leaders for not being able to control protesters or on-line trolling by a few supporters.

For example, the Daily Record in Jan 2015 partly quoted Nick but left out Nick saying he did not feel under threat while the Scotsman also in Jan 2015 left that part of the quote in. The Guardian also left it in when they discussed Nick's book in June 2015.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/bbc-hired-indyref-bodyguard-for-nick-robinson-1-3657887

Robinson, said: ““In reality I never felt under threat at all but the BBC were … probably more concerned about my crew getting beaten up than that I might get beaten up, which they probably thought I deserved!”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/21/nick-robinson-bbc-lung-cancer-cybernats

Robinson also discusses the accusations of BBC bias and being trolled on-line in the Guardian article.

The Daily record talked about how "Bosses hired a burly minder after raging Yes campaigners marched on the corporation’s Glasgow HQ, calling for him to be sacked following a report he had aired about Alex Salmond." and described the protesters as having "laid siege to the Beeb".

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-bbc-journalist-nick-robinson-4958086

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Absolutely it's reasonable to ask the question but in coming to a decision about it, without the info, and adding in the anti semitism part we are back at conspiracy theory.


Agree with you that the idea that this was going to silence criticism was, if any one had it, stupid and categorically wrong now. However, I think the idea that it can be used to portray this as 'what the left dors' and has been, see Spectator on this, is much more of a worry but that doesn't need a conspiracy just people seeking to spin.

Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories. It's irrelevant to me if someone else wants to package it up and try to discredit it as a conspiracy theory. 

I am more interested in whether there is any truth to the individual claims. Craig formed an opinion on the LK issue based on evasions to his questions and a lack of evidence of threats, which I think is a reasonable thing for a blogger to do.

The Independent reported Corbyn expressing an opinion that the BBC spins stories to discredit him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-waston-condemns-labour-supporters-who-hissed-at-bbc-s-laura-kuenssberg-a7062656.html

The anti-Semitism accusations are used by some people  - including certain Jewish lobby groups - to try to discredit criticism of Zionism. I don't think it's a conspiracy to suggest that. Especially since Craig Murray is being sued for defending himself on Sky against accusations of anti-Semitism by Jake Wallis Simons of the the Daily Mail, despite Murray apologising for calling Simons a liar. And Simpson's lawyer, Lewis, is a director of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

“None of us charge for our time but we devote it to putting legal arguments forward for Israel,” Lewis said.
 
Details of the dispute from Murray's perspective:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/fighting-right-support-palestine/

If we are going to discuss using anti-Semitism claims to discredit people - I suggest we start a new thread.

[Nearly Sane]

If you add two non connected issues together without actually proving either, and say that you have an argument, which is what the conspiracy theory here is then the thinking is faulty. The two things do not back each other up. 

As to the non response from Kuennsberg, it's worth precisely nothing as to whether non specified threats may or nay not have been made.

I agree that the use of anti Semitism claims are used by some people to defend Israel. Just as some people use coded attacks on Isreal but are actually being anti semitic. That's the spin, as in The Spectators approach to the bodyguard that I was talking about.

Having contributed to Craig's defence fund, I am perfectly well aware of the case. I may disagree with him often but he's a good guy, and we need to do someone how about how free speech van be attacked by suing.

But you are right about the anti Semitism issu needing a separate topic, which is my point about Craig's blog here. They are separate topics.

 (BTW Craig's book on Alexander 'Sikunder' Burnes is very good IMO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Burnes)

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you add two non connected issues together without actually proving either, and say that you have an argument, which is what the conspiracy theory here is then the thinking is faulty. The two things do not back each other up. 

As to the non response from Kuennsberg, it's worth precisely nothing as to whether non specified threats may or nay not have been made.

I agree that the use of anti Semitism claims are used by some people to defend Israel. Just as some people use coded attacks on Isreal but are actually being anti semitic. That's the spin, as in The Spectators approach to the bodyguard that I was talking about.

Having contributed to Craig's defence fund, I am perfectly well aware of the case. I may disagree with him often but he's a good guy, and we need to do someone how about how free speech van be attacked by suing.

But you are right about the anti Semitism issu needing a separate topic, which is my point about Craig's blog here. They are separate topics.

 (BTW Craig's book on Alexander 'Sikunder' Burnes is very good IMO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Burnes)

The issues don't appear non-connected. I agree that a non-response from Jasper Jackson or Babbs or LK does not prove anything. But Craig does not need to prove anything - he is highlighting in his blog that he saw only one misogynistic comment and one misogynistic tweet relating to a petition of 35,000 signatures against Kuenssberg and despite asking for evidence of a larger number of misogynistic comments or tweets, none was forthcoming. So no evidence that Kuenssberg is some special case amongst broadcasters  that we should feel outraged about, which then makes the "outrage" against Vlad's comments and accusations that Vlad supports abuse of women very silly.

Craig is writing an opinion piece about his theory that many/some of the smears against Corbyn's leadership are manufactured by the Establishment and he gave a couple of examples of manufactured smears such as anti-Semitic or misogynist, as there was no evidence that any misogynistic comments to LK were made by Corbyn supporters. But they were used in the media to smear Corbynites - as you pointed out the Spectator article was an example of this spin or smear.

Inserting the word "conspiracy" before the word "theory" might mean something to you. To me it's just a theory. I personally would not vote for Corbyn - I don't agree with a few of his key policies - but I agree that there could be some truth with the manufactured smears theory. You haven't shown the thinking is faulty - but I get that it's your opinion/ assertion that it is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Boris finishes speech............... another Ripping Yarn ramble with himself as Nayland Smith and Jeremy Corbyn as Fu Manchu.
Nothing about the £350 million pounds per week though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BBC News interview Keunnsberg with May with Keunnsbergs statements silenced and only May's statement's audible.
More skulduggery?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Conservatives are starting a Youth wing. Anyone under 65 can join.

[floo]

Some prankster gave May a P45 whilst she was making her speech. I suspect that will be remembered long after what she said has been forgotten.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Johnson ,with his atrocious Sirte speech is pitching at his constituency.................i.e. The Good, old fashioned Cunt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some prankster gave May a P45 whilst she was making her speech. I suspect that will be remembered long after what she said has been forgotten.

I here she was overcome by the return of Ian Duncan Cough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently Mrs May's speech was a  ucking disaster.

[Sebastian Toe]

Apparently Mrs May's speech was a  ucking disaster.

I thought she was quite phlegmboyant!

[wigginhall]

Votes or women!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Votes or women!

Ointment  or that nasty rash.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

House of lords . Lords to serve 15 year periods. Probably that's what many serve already. The Lords spiritual should represent the religious and stealth religious make up of the UK so Secular Humanists/secularists would take the largest number of seats So that would be baroness Shappi and Polly, Lords Dicky, Andrew, Keith and Terry.

[ProfessorDavey]

So that would be baroness Shappi and Polly, Lords Dicky, Andrew, Keith and Terry.

So how many of those people are members of the HoLs to balance the 26 Lords Spiritual Bishops and countless other establishment Christians (including many retired Bishops). Hmm - that would be none, zero, zilch - not a single one of the people you mention is a member of the House of Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So how many of those people are members of the HoLs to balance the 26 Lords Spiritual Bishops and countless other establishment Christians (including many retired Bishops). Hmm - that would be none, zero, zilch - not a single one of the people you mention is a member of the House of Lords.

No i'm proposing they should be since they represent the largest world view in the UK. The division of the 26 Lords spiritual should be decided by numbers represented.

[ProfessorDavey]

No i'm proposing they should be since they represent the largest world view in the UK.

No they don't - most people in the UK aren't affiliated to, nor consider themselves to be represented by, any organised religious denomination nor any humanist or secular organisation.

You are making the classic error of thinking that by stacking up membership of the Lords (or other establishment bodies) with more and more people in leadership positions of organisation with tiny memberships that you end up being representative. You don't - actually you compound the error. We are seeing this more any more, where bodies that have always had CofE representation, and often RCC representation, feel the need to add an official representative of Islam (2-3% of the population) and Judaism (1% of the population) etc as if this makes them somehow more representative. And in doing so ignoring the 85-90% of the population that are not active members of any official religion nor of any humanist/secular organisation. We need greater representation from the majority not inviting more and more representatives of organisation with tiny memberships.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they don't - most people in the UK aren't affiliated to, nor consider themselves to be represented by, any organised religious denomination nor any humanist or secular organisation.

You are making the classic error of thinking that by stacking up membership of the Lords (or other establishment bodies) with more and more people in leadership positions of organisation with tiny memberships that you end up being representative. You don't - actually you compound the error. We are seeing this more any more, where bodies that have always had CofE representation, and often RCC representation, feel the need to add an official representative of Islam (2-3% of the population) and Judaism (1% of the population) etc as if this makes them somehow more representative. And in doing so ignoring the 85-90% of the population that are not active members of any official religion nor of any humanist/secular organisation. We need greater representation from the majority not inviting more and more representatives of organisation with tiny memberships.

No i'm not, I'm proposing keeping the twenty six but more fairly distributing them amongst those with a world view since we should have those eyes in Government.

In that proposal therefore the overview is thus represented. I believe it is already but it has not stopped self short term interests spiralling up their own rectum's.

Get secular humanist lords in and tough titty on those without a world view who are represented anyway.