|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 14, 2023 22:13:36 GMT
The next BBC Chairman disagrees - and that is it in a nutshell The next BBC chairman has not got a leg to stand on, he is nothing more than a Tory appointed Tory stooge, if he wants a fight - bring it on. I'm not convinced somehow he is going to waste his time debating some anonymous weirdo in the far fringes of the internet. At least I hope (for taxpayers sake) that is not something he will be doing..
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 14, 2023 22:15:36 GMT
Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? Is there such a petition or is it to stop him freely exercising those rights whilst being employed at what amounts to public expense. There are rules if one is employed by anyone especially if one is a celebrity. Not making your statements from the platform is neither here nor there it is the platform that gives you prominence. To be clear I think he can make whatever statements he likes outside of his platform duties. All I ask is that if one accepts that premise it applies to everyone and on the left they do tend to like to seek to cancel people and their employment as a regular occurrence even when those comments are not from the platform that gives them prominence. The BBC don't pay him to post on X.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 14, 2023 22:19:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 15, 2023 6:57:03 GMT
Yes. I understood the offences, particularly the s.127 offence, were to be completely revamped in the new Online Safety legislation and in accordance with the Law Commission's recommendations ( Summary page 9).
I've had a quick look at the Bill and can't see where the changes to 127(1) are to be found. Perhaps someone more familiar with the Bill or with more time than I have available (at three score years and too many I should have, but don't) might enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 15, 2023 7:34:26 GMT
Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? My contract of employment requires i keep my opinions to myself where they might bring my employer into disrepute. Every other one since the age of 15 has said the same. Say ANYTHING to piss on my employer’s carefully crafted House of Cards and welcome to the dole Every contract i had as a freelancer was even worse. Where is my right to free speech to reveal all sorts ? And every time that left leaning arsehole opens his gob he shows what a shitfest the BBC is. Why should I be forced to tokerate employing someone under terms better than i am myself offered ?
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 15, 2023 9:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Dec 15, 2023 9:20:16 GMT
Seems to me freedom of speech is pretty much like terrorism,one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,it’s not hard to work out we all have our prejudices and think only ours are legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 15, 2023 9:42:38 GMT
Seems to me freedom of speech is pretty much like terrorism,one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,it’s not hard to work out we all have our prejudices and think only ours are legitimate. The issue is when someone else decides that they're not. Even in a private conversation with no unwilling participants.
That's when it becomes thought crime. And that never ends well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 10:17:50 GMT
Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? My contract of employment requires i keep my opinions to myself where they might bring my employer into disrepute. Every other one since the age of 15 has said the same. Say ANYTHING to piss on my employer’s carefully crafted House of Cards and welcome to the dole Every contract i had as a freelancer was even worse. Where is my right to free speech to reveal all sorts ? And every time that left leaning arsehole opens his gob he shows what a shitfest the BBC is. Why should I be forced to tokerate employing someone under terms better than i am myself offered ? It is the same for me. If I were to post something online that was highly offensive, whilst being openly identifiable as me, I would risk the sack. I have seen it happen. A few years ago one colleague posted some highly offensive commentary about Muslims on Facebook, not helped by the fact that we happened to have a popular Muslim colleague at the time who originally came from Egypt. The staff member concerned was already on a final warning for posting offensive commentary of some other kind, the details of which I never became aware of. He was sacked. I know if I went online and said something like "N*gg*rs are little better than apes", or "P*kis are mostly paedophiles" or "Gay people should be set on fire" or "Disabled babies should be strangled at birth" or "Hitler had the right idea when it came to the Jews" or anything like that, I guarantee that as soon as my employer became aware of it I would be sacked. I do of course hasten to add that I do not actually think any of those things, but they are the sort of examples that few employers would tolerate from their staff, especially if they work in public facing, highly visible, roles. They also tend to frown upon employees being negative about their employer or any fellow employees online. Such is life today, and the main reason is that in days gone by we might just have shared offensive opinions with our mates down the pub, but now we can do it where the entire public can see it, including many customers of the organisations we work for. Businesses are pretty much driven by the bottom line, and if for example several employees from a particular supermarket were openly spouting homophobic commentary online, this would be highly unlikely to attract many more customers but would if not addressed drive many gay ones away. It might also cause unwelcome internal friction with any gay colleagues kicking off. And in both cases there would be the potential for costly legal ramifications. So employers would tend to nip that sort of thing in the bud and come down on it like a ton of bricks in order to protect their own bottom line, especially if the offending staff members are easily replaceable.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 15, 2023 10:20:55 GMT
Seems to me freedom of speech is pretty much like terrorism,one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,it’s not hard to work out we all have our prejudices and think only ours are legitimate. The issue is when someone else decides that they're not. Even in a private conversation with no unwilling participants.
That's when it becomes thought crime. And that never ends well.
Can you name a single thought crime in common law or on the statute books? A thought crime is one that requires only a mens rea, with no actus reus.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 15, 2023 10:25:04 GMT
Seems to me freedom of speech is pretty much like terrorism,one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,it’s not hard to work out we all have our prejudices and think only ours are legitimate. The issue is when someone else decides that they're not. Even in a private conversation with no unwilling participants.
That's when it becomes thought crime. And that never ends well.
I've yet to come across a right-wing Orwell botherer who actually understood what Orwell was saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 10:34:13 GMT
Seems to me freedom of speech is pretty much like terrorism,one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,it’s not hard to work out we all have our prejudices and think only ours are legitimate. The issue is when someone else decides that they're not. Even in a private conversation with no unwilling participants.
That's when it becomes thought crime. And that never ends well.
I can see where you are coming from logically. I mean if two antisemites were having a private discussion between themselves where no one else could hear in which they were both stating that Hitler was right to try and kill all the Jews, although it is obviously the sort of obnoxious shit which most of us would find highly offensive, if none of us hear it we cannot logically be offended by it. And we cannot stop either of from thinking it anyway. We can just take solace in the fact that such hatred is relatively rare. But the examples given in the OP appear to have become public knowledge somehow, and were unacceptable attitudes for people in a serving police force to have. It is what such attitudes imply for the way they might interact with people in their jobs which makes it a problem. However, since they appear to have already retired, it is a bit pointless acting on it now, unless they deliberately took action to publicise such views, which does not seem to be the case. Would have been better just to let this one go and focus more on those still in positions where such opinions could be an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 10:37:41 GMT
I see you are an enthusiastic convert to cancel culture when it suits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 10:41:12 GMT
The issue is when someone else decides that they're not. Even in a private conversation with no unwilling participants.
That's when it becomes thought crime. And that never ends well.
Can you name a single thought crime in common law or on the statute books? A thought crime is one that requires only a mens rea, with no actus reus. Silently praying in the street within the area of an abortion clinic.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 15, 2023 10:43:32 GMT
Can you name a single thought crime in common law or on the statute books? A thought crime is one that requires only a mens rea, with no actus reus. Silently praying in the street within the area of an abortion clinic. Cite the legislation. Let's have a look at it to see if it requires only mens rea. I'm very, very sceptical. In fact, even without reading the legislation, I'm quite sure that 'praying' isn't an element of whatever crime is involved.
|
|