I voted in the police crime commissioner elections, I pay the police wages through my wages. There is no need to get involved to try to prevent a potential rape. I've done my bit.
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
Freedom of speech is not, in my understanding, absolute. It should not be subject to government whims, obviously, but it must also be considered in conjunction with other rights.
For example the right to life - should freedom of speech trump that and allow incitement to kill? I'd argue the right to life is more fundamental. A dead man can't speak all that freely.
Or right to a fair trial? Should we be allowed to prejudice ongoing court cases by insisting on our right to free speech?
I'm not sure if it's really a case of the Mail being anti-trans as such; to me, the paper's mindset (and Littlejohn's in particular) seems to be that "the country's gone to the dogs" and this lazy, prejudiced thinking covers the whole spectrum of benefits claimants, immigrants, teenagers, single parents, non-heterosexual people etc etc. In short, anyone who's deemed to be beyond what the editor considers the Mail's demographic...
It ties-in with yet more lazy thinking: that these people are "getting something for nothing," be it compensation, outrageous amounts of benefits money, luxurious housing...even mere compassion and understanding from others. The mindset seems to be that the groups mentioned above are fakers and shirkers, not genuinely deserving of help or empathy. Plus, they're "not like you or me". *sighs*
Oh and by the way, there's little genuine free speech in this country while the press & media in general shapes public opinion against that public's better interests. For example, growing up as a working-class person, I was led to believe (via newspapers and tv programmes) that the Labour Party consisted of incompetent buffons in thrall to the Kremlin; apparently it was far better for me and my folks to vote for those "decent, sensible chaps" wearing smart suits and blue ties. While Enfield and the like were waving wads of cash around on television the rest of the country had, ironically, truly "gone to the dogs"; plus ça change...
It ties-in with yet more lazy thinking: that these people are "getting something for nothing," be it compensation, outrageous amounts of benefits money, luxurious housing...even mere compassion and understanding from others. The mindset seems to be that the groups mentioned above are fakers and shirkers, not genuinely deserving of help or empathy. Plus, they're "not like you or me". *sighs*
Oh and by the way, there's little genuine free speech in this country while the press & media in general shapes public opinion against that public's better interests. For example, growing up as a working-class person, I was led to believe (via newspapers and tv programmes) that the Labour Party consisted of incompetent buffons in thrall to the Kremlin; apparently it was far better for me and my folks to vote for those "decent, sensible chaps" wearing smart suits and blue ties. While Enfield and the like were waving wads of cash around on television the rest of the country had, ironically, truly "gone to the dogs"; plus ça change...
Well no, but if someone is vehemently advocating rape, or actually threatening it, and you just ignore him, have you done your bit in simply not supporting and encouraging him?
Yes, well slightly upsetting a royal overlord is worse than driving a scummy commoner to death. British right-wing 101.
Yeh, well that's clearly not the same.
At the end of the day, the Mail employ people who get them hits on their website and are popular in the actual newspaper.
Every time you talk about him, you're basically justifying his position to them. It's remarkably counterproductive.
Yes it is. You argue that the best way to counter evil is to ignore it. Differing degrees I'll admit, but same principle.
Yeah guys - we shouldn't be pointing out hate and prejudice, we should ignore it, that makes it go away! Yeah!
They had a big hand in shaping the AV+ election. Intelligent people who are articulate and in many ways clever, completely failed to understand what the difference of AV+ was, what the benefits were, what the point of it was. Instead they gobble up the garbage that the newspapers and the no-vote campaign come up with. Whether or not the true costs of AV+ actually outweighed the benefits is another matter...
Then again, intelligent people who are articulate and in many ways clever sometimes read the Daily Mail.
I know what you mean about the Labour Party being looked down on too, but this was from a (relatively) upper-class mate. My mate asked me who I voted for in 2010 the other day. (Difficult to make that sound like a non-totally made up story). I said Lib Dems and we had a grand old convo about whether the Dems were right to get in bed with the Tories (I said yes), and whether I would vote for them again (I said yes). Apparently he'd been strong-armed into voting for the tories by his uni mates, saying how the Labour were populist benefit-appeasing part timers whereas the Tories were a professional party, run with the nations best interests at heart etc. Labour would reduce this country to ruin, Conservatives would lead it to a new golden age.
To be honest a lot of that is true, Labour are fantastically populist. In many ways you have to appreciate Cameron and Osbourne for sticking with the unpopular austerity program. Blair never would. Then again, the back benchers would have Camerons throat if he changed.
Yes. (a lot of double negatives in there).
Even in the bible, seeing evil and doing nothing is a sin. Ignoring Littlejohn by simply not reading his babble is not enough.
Wait, I think we're agreeing with each other without realising it, rcoobc. Too many double negatives indeed. 
Wait, I think we're agreeing with each other without realising it, rcoobc. Too many double negatives indeed.
Aye we are mate! My fault, because sarcasm never goes down well in writing. Well unless have a certain level of writing, which I don't.
Nor I! Basically Littlejohn is a prick and ignoring him isn't enough.
Good God. Do you have a concept of nuance?
If a child shouts and screams a lot, you ignore them, and they'll stop. If you go into a lot of detail about why they should stop shouting, and how they're discriminating against your ear-buds, they won't.
Part of me suspects you're being serious here too.
If we could go back in time and tell Littlejohn's parents that, the world would be a better place.
And maybe Lucy would be alive.
Yeah Al, children write for national newspapers.
I remember when I was 6 and wrote for the mail, they fired me when I was nearly 7 though, something about me starting to "develop logic"
AlThere is some poetic irony here.
Al telling us to treat the tirades of a national newspaper columnist, who (possibly) caused the suicide of a primary school teacher by saying that she was "project(ing) his personal problems on to impressionable young children." as those of a child shouting their mouth off.
Brilliant.
Al telling us to treat the tirades of a national newspaper columnist, who (possibly) caused the suicide of a primary school teacher by saying that she was "project(ing) his personal problems on to impressionable young children." as those of a child shouting their mouth off.
Brilliant.
That seems like a fantastic way to deal with things, just completely ignore them and have no opinion on them whatsoever.
fecking hell I'd like to think you're joking, but it's very hard to tell with you in the CE.
I just think people over-estimate the influence of Richard Littlejohn. I always thought most people just had a bit of a laugh at how much of a prick he is. He definitely doesn't have that big a role in terms of actual society.
What effect does Littlejohn actually have? As far as I can tell, he writes a mean column about someone he doesn't like once a week. It's hardly like this guy's a government minister or something.
A lot of you are just very hysterical, which is a bit bizarre.
What effect does Littlejohn actually have? As far as I can tell, he writes a mean column about someone he doesn't like once a week. It's hardly like this guy's a government minister or something.
A lot of you are just very hysterical, which is a bit bizarre.
How did he cause this woman's suicide? Seriously?
It's not every week one of the people he writes about kills themselves. It might be the source of lighthearted amusement to you Al but we see it as quite a big event which shows how much influence he does have - particularly on the people he writes 'mean' columns about.
Surely some people need to ask themselves why we treasure freedom of speech? We treasure it because otherwise people could be discriminated against, lose more fundamental rights such as the right to life or liberty, without anyone knowing and consequently standing up in defence of them.
In this topic 'freedom of speech' has been used to destroy the very things which we want freedom of speech to protect. The Woman's freedom to practise the job which she chose was irreparably damaged by the article, this is surely not what we protect freedom of speech for.
Freedom of speech, for me at least, is a facilitatory right, it helps to ensure the fundamental rights such as a right to life, a right to use that life to pursue whatever the objectives are that make us feel we have lived a satisfactory life. When it is used to destroy those things it is no longer something we should be protecting.
In this topic 'freedom of speech' has been used to destroy the very things which we want freedom of speech to protect. The Woman's freedom to practise the job which she chose was irreparably damaged by the article, this is surely not what we protect freedom of speech for.
Freedom of speech, for me at least, is a facilitatory right, it helps to ensure the fundamental rights such as a right to life, a right to use that life to pursue whatever the objectives are that make us feel we have lived a satisfactory life. When it is used to destroy those things it is no longer something we should be protecting.
Err, by completely ruining her life?
Are you asking for a hypothetical situation, or asking if I have inside knowledge as to the reasons behind her suicide?
Probably the latter.
What I'm saying is that there isn't a shred of evidence to connect the two. What you're saying is that this person was perfectly happy in their life before they read Littlejohn's article, at which point they instantly committed suicide.
I don't think this line of argument really stands up. There might have been many other factors, on which I'm not going to speculate.
It's incredibly disrespectful to the deceased to claim that one solitary journalist would have had the sway to impact upon the very essence of their life. Maybe it's true, who knows? But the chances are it isn't.
Do you think the fact that her ability to do her job was questioned in relation to her gender identity and the ensuing changes in her life i.e having to account for the fecking papparazi would not be contributing factors?
Yeah, maybe she was sad and depressed, we don't know that. What we do know is that he actively changed her life for the worse.
He actively changed her life for the worse, but leaping to the conclusion that it brought about her suicide is wrong, clearly. Your ridiculously hysterical posts in the CE forum hardly add to the fulfillment of my life, sadly you couldn't be held fully responsible.
I knew you'd come out with out that. No I'm not saying that. In fact I'd argue I'm probably saying the opposite:
Because Littlejohn launched a personal attack, at a national scale, on a vulnerable person who then commited suicide, he should be sent to jail, let alone sacked.
But regardless, you're assuming that Lucy was deeply unhappy. Presumably because you don't agree with her decision to change gender, you'd rather assume that she had a deep-rooted mental health problem. Now I'm putting words in your mouth, which is unfair. But it pisses me off that everytime the press go after someone, and then they commit suicide, for some reason we can't blame the press!
Edit - I hate bolded words.
Anyway, that is all there is to it. That's all we know.
Vulnerable person. Personal attack on a national scale. Suicide.
Me being sarcastic towards your trolling, and occasionally calling you cnut is hardly the same as this.
If my posts were to be printed in the mail and I sent cameramen to your house and place of work or lectures then you might have a point.
I agree, to some extent, that the press get away scot free for horrendous stories. But it's just the way it is - I'd rather that(awful that it might be) than imprisoning journalists for something that might have had very little to do with them, in the grand scheme of things.
But as you clearly haven't ignored and forgotten examples of this, you're responsible for them continuing.
I'd love to have seen the civil rights movement as headed by alastair. Sure, we might still have gotten the bus boycott, but the marches would be right out. Too much effort. Just ignore racism in America and eventually you'll get those jobs and freedom.
How about being fired from his job?