The Future of Britain

[Nearly Sane]

I'm picturing Vlad on spoons

[Enki]

Okay, I'm out.

I know you are intelligent enough to read between the lines, understand what I mean.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Don't worry, JP, I got the gist of what you were saying. It seems to me that banning things/people/organizations etc. should be done with the utmost care and consideration of the consequences. As far as Rhi's comment about banning the Daily Mail goes, I assumed it was tongue in cheek, at least I hope it was, as I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action.

On the subject of your opening post, I don't think that I agree with you or Tom Holland. Having lived through the end of the Second World War, the IRA bombings in mainland UK, and seen from a distance the sectarian violence in NI, I don't think the present terrorist/sectarian troubles reflect fairly on the reasonable and caring attitude of most people in these islands. It seems to me that not just us, but many countries, are going through a phase where such hatred and violence is to the fore. Who knows what life will be like in the UK(with or without an independent Scotland) in 30 years time? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And? You said if we started banning things then it would be a removal of a cornerstone that our society was built on. Since we already ban things, and have always banned things your post makes no sense. And your reply here both ignores that and is a non sequitur.

Rather than go straight for the jugular would it not be more conducive to the discussion if instead you said something like: “We have always banned some things, so presumably you’re thinking here of a cornerstone of things that absolutely should not be banned, or that would cause more harm than good if they were banned”?

As for the OP, I suppose my response wold be along the lines of, "Yes, it's bloody awful but consider too the astonishing outpouring of warmth and practical help from the ground up despite the inadequacies of the top down infrastructure. That to me is modern Britain in action, and it's something to be proud of."     

[Nearly Sane]

Don't worry, JP, I got the gist of what you were saying. It seems to me that banning things/people/organizations etc. should be done with the utmost care and consideration of the consequences. As far as Rhi's comment about banning the Daily Mail goes, I assumed it was tongue in cheek, at least I hope it was, as I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action.

On the subject of your opening post, I don't think that I agree with you or Tom Holland. Having lived through the end of the Second World War, the IRA bombings in mainland UK, and seen from a distance the sectarian violence in NI, I don't think the present terrorist/sectarian troubles reflect fairly on the reasonable and caring attitude of most people in these islands. It seems to me that not just us, but many countries, are going through a phase where such hatred and violence is to the fore. Who knows what life will be like in the UK(with or without an independent Scotland) in 30 years time?

I see you were willing to guess. The freedom of the press isn't an absolute and lots of stuff is already banned, so how is it a cornerstone and how would be starting to ban stuff when lots already is? Ever heard of a D Notice or a super injunction (never mind hate speech or libel)?

[Shaker]

My understanding is that a D notice is a polite request, not a legally enforceable order, so not really any threat to press freedom.

[Nearly Sane]

My understanding is that a D notice is a polite request, not a legally enforceable order.

I think polite is polite, but they are in general obeyed. That they don't need to be enforceable doesn't show that the idea that we have a free press is incorrect.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Rather than go straight for the jugular would it not be more conducive to the discussion if instead you said something like: “We have always banned some things, so presumably you’re thinking here of a cornerstone of things that absolutely should not be banned, or that would cause more harm than good if they were banned”?

As for the OP, I suppose my response wold be along the lines of, "Yes, it's bloody awful but consider too the astonishing outpouring of warmth and practical help from the ground up despite the inadequacies of the top down infrastructure. That to me is modern Britain in action, and it's something to be proud of."   

Go for the jugular? By saying there are things that have always been banned? How is pointing out a simple fact going for the jugular?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Go for the jugular? By saying there are things that have always been banned? How is pointing out a simple fact going for the jugular?

With posts like this:

And? You said if we started banning things then it would be a removal of a cornerstone that our society was built on. Since we already ban things, and have always banned things your post makes no sense. And your reply here both ignores that and is a non sequitur.

There are more productive ways of teasing out the thinking of others, and I see that JP abandoned ship in response.

Was that your intention? 

[JP]

Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.

This is very much under threat.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

With posts like this:

There are more productive ways of teasing out the thinking of others, and I see that JP abandoned ship in response.

Was that your intention?

Challenging an incorrect and illogical statement? Yes. Do you think that is wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.

This is very much under threat.

Could you lay out a case for why you think this by showing how freedom of speech has changed over time?

[JP]

Could you lay out a case for why you think this by showing how freedom of speech has changed over time?

Not for you.

[Enki]

I see you were willing to guess. The freedom of the press isn't an absolute and lots of stuff is already banned, so how is it a cornerstone and how would be starting to ban stuff when lots already is? Ever heard of a D Notice or a super injunction (never mind hate speech or libel)?

Don't know about guessing, just expressing an opinion, as none of us know the future. Never said that freedom of the press was an absolute. Happily agree that all sorts of things are banned(e.g. certain dog breeds). Never mentioned anything about the idea of 'starting to ban stuff when lots already is', that's between you and JP. Of course I've heard of D notices(which are requests) and super injunctions. neither of which alters anything that I have said in the first paragraph.

[Nearly Sane]

Not for you.

Diddums!

[Nearly Sane]

Don't know about guessing, just expressing an opinion, as none of us know the future. Never said that freedom of the press was an absolute. Happily agree that all sorts of things are banned(e.g. certain dog breeds). Never mentioned anything about the idea of 'starting to ban stuff when lots already is', that's between you and JP. Of course I've heard of D notices(which are requests) and super injunctions. neither of which alters anything that I have said in the first paragraph.

So what do you think the 'cornerstone' is that would be effected by banning things and how?

[Rhiannon]

Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.

This is very much under threat.

Have you read Yahoo News?

[Rhiannon]

A cornerstone of our way of life is meant to be democracy, but the DM and its fake news undermines our democratic process (see Brexit). Which is more important, the right to know what you are voting for or the right to make up shit?

[Enki]

So what do you think the 'cornerstone' is that would be effected by banning things and how?

Well, I would suggest that any government banning a newspaper, such as the the Daily Mail(which was the original contention) or the Mirror, for instance, would lead to much greater division in society, and would lead to increased hostile reactions on behalf of those who supported the political beliefs held by said newspapers. It seems to me that most dictatorial regimes either do not allow freedom of the press or control the output of the press in only allowing 'positive' stories to surface, and, whichever government was foolish enough to implement this, would lay themselves open to charges of being strongly anti-democratic. The basic ideal of the freedom of the Press is widely regarded as one of the important foundations of a democracy, in my opinion.

If one looks back at the banning of television and radio broadcasts by a range of Loyalist and Irish Republican groups between 1988 and 1994, it seems to me that this, on the whole, had deleterious (and sometimes even comical) effects. In my opinion no such bans should have been implemented. 

[Rhiannon]

But as I've just said the DM subverts democracy. It doesn't publish news, it publishes fake news. The people that read it do so because this is the kind of news they want so you can't expect regulation on the part of its readership. They want to hear that it's all the fault of immigrants/Muslims/brown people, or that coffee/bacon/anoraks give you cancer.

What part does it play in a healthy democratic society?

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I would suggest that any government banning a newspaper, such as the the Daily Mail(which was the original contention) or the Mirror, for instance, would lead to much greater division in society, and would lead to increased hostile reactions on behalf of those who supported the political beliefs held by said newspapers. It seems to me that most dictatorial regimes either do not allow freedom of the press or control the output of the press in only allowing 'positive' stories to surface, and, whichever government was foolish enough to implement this, would lay themselves open to charges of being strongly anti-democratic. The basic ideal of the freedom of the Press is widely regarded as one of the important foundations of a democracy, in my opinion.

If one looks back at the banning of television and radio broadcasts by a range of Loyalist and Irish Republican groups between 1988 and 1994, it seems to me that this, on the whole, had deleterious (and sometimes even comical) effects. In my opinion no such bans should have been implemented.

So the original cornerstone is in your opinion publishing a newspaper, so could I  publish the Paedophile Clarion? Including all the kids that need a good seeing to? How about The Bad Yid News with those Jews that need corrected? Maybe the Nigger Mirror, when you need to know who should be enslaved?


The freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic and not one that I think boils down to the idea that we haven't banned things as a cornerstone of whatever it is we do. The history of the press is a history of being banned not of being free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Challenging an incorrect and illogical statement? Yes. Do you think that is wrong?

Challenging is fine - it was the way you go about it that I was questioning. It's up to you of course, but I find that challenging with a little empathy thrown in tends to be more fruitful than challenging with none. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Challenging is fine - it was the way you go about it that I was questioning. It's up to you of course, but I find that challenging with a little empathy thrown in tends to be more fruitful than challenging with none.

So you think that pointing out illogicality and incorrectness isn't showing empathy. OK, so how do you challenge in a way that shows empathy? I am interested to learn from previous approaches you might have used here that you think worthy of repetition.

[Rhiannon]

If someone's posting style pisses me off it's up to me if I want to engage with that or not. This is a forum for grown ups, not snowflakes, abuse aside we are all responsible as individuals for what we do or don't get out of it. I've flounced as much as anyone. My fault, no-one else's.

Anyway.

Knees up muvver braahnn, knees up muvver braahhnn...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

But as I've just said the DM subverts democracy. It doesn't publish news, it publishes fake news. The people that read it do so because this is the kind of news they want so you can't expect regulation on the part of its readership. They want to hear that it's all the fault of immigrants/Muslims/brown people, or that coffee/bacon/anoraks give you cancer.

What part does it play in a healthy democratic society?

Very little - it's pretty much anathema to that. But here you're describing the liberal paradox - if you believe in freedom of speech, then on what basis would you deny it to others, however filthy, bigoted, dishonest etc they might be? The moment you say "ban it!" you weaken the very thing you seek to protect. If the DM, why not The Daily Express? And if the Express, why not The Sun etc?

And if nonetheless an authoritarian gov't gets in and says, "Ban the Guardian" what defence would you have?

That's why banning even some freedom of speech is so problematic - the classic example being that you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" because real people are likely to be hurt that way. But next we have phrases like "likely to incite violence" etc. Likely according to whom, and where should that line be drawn?

Just look at Theresa May now and the heavy hints about increasing the Gov't's right to look at private e-mails under the guise or reducing terrorist threats. Do you really think Trump wouldn't close down CNN or The New York Times if he had the power to do it?

That's the irony - that when you trade privacy for security eventually you deserve neither.   

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Very little - it's pretty much anathema to that. But here you're describing the liberal paradox - if you believe in freedom of speech, then on what basis would you deny it to others, however filthy, bigoted, dishonest etc they might be? The moment you say "ban it!" you weaken the very thing you seek to protect. If the DM, why not The Daily Express? And if the Express, why not The Sun etc?

And if nonetheless, an authoritarian gov't gets in and says, "Ban the Guardian" what defence would you have?

That's why banning even some free speech is so problematic - the classic example being that you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" because real people are likely to be hurt that way. hen we have phrases like "likely to incite violence" etc. Likely according to whom, and where should that line be drawn?

Just look at Theresa May now and the heavy hints about increasing the Gov'ts right to look at private e-mails under the guise or reducing terrorist threats. That's the irony - that when you trade privacy for security eventually you deserve neither.   

I haven't mentioned privacy. I want the press to be at least vaguely honest. Because if they aren't, what we get is fake news being believed, and that interferes with democracy - hence our independent judiciary being called the enemies of the people. Where do you think that will lead?