NurembergVillan Posted May 20, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said: I remember seeing one of these in a picture with mrs may in, looked quite a big crowd till another photo was leaked to show it was actually about 20 party members photographed creatively to give the appearence of a big crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: yeah thats the one, where mrs M's body language doesn't look totally false for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 I really think she should go with the white robe, far better than her power stance in the suit, she looks human in the robe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: I'm posting this here because the Tories have announced their plans to ditch the final implementation of Leveson in their manifesto. So, the guy who stopped that malware attack two weeks ago, posts anonymously on the internet, and didn't want his name or address published for understandable security reasons, so naturally Was Leveson 2 going to prevent people from discovering and publishing information? If so, then well done to the Tories for binning it. Edited May 20, 2017 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, snowychap said: Was Leveson 2 going to prevent people from discovering and publishing information? If so, then well done to the Tories for binning it. It would have provided a meaningful regulator who would have stepped in in situations like this, in which information is published that is of absolutely no value and yet has put an individual's safety at risk. There's no public interest in a picture of the front of this man's house. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: It would have provided a meaningful regulator who would have stepped in in situations like this, in which information is published that is of absolutely no value and yet has put an individual's safety at risk. There's no public interest in a picture of the front of this man's house. And what would that regulator have done? Who would they have prevented from publishing a picture 'in front of this man's house'? You? Me? A newspaper signed up to the regulator's code? People's publicly available details are not private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 37 minutes ago, snowychap said: And what would that regulator have done? Who would they have prevented from publishing a picture 'in front of this man's house'? You? Me? A newspaper signed up to the regulator's code? People's publicly available details are not private. The newspaper, which would be signed up to the code. Leveson 1 spelt out the outlines of such an organisation, of which the IPSO is not. It is of course true that the front of someone's property is not 'private', in the sense that anybody can see it. However, there are times when it is not appropriate to reveal details about a person, and one such situation is when it may pose a risk to that person's safety. I know that we have very different opinions on this topic, so I don't expect to agree. I have read your comments on press regulation before, and you make some good points. I assume that by 'You? Me?' you are referring to the difficulty of regulating information in a time when anyone with a keyboard or a smart phone is in some way a 'publisher', and I agree this is difficult. However, I believe that there need to be genuine forms of redress when newspapers overstep a line. That line may not be a legal line, but a moral one. The paper has committed no crime in this instance. Yet, ultimately, a person who did an unambiguously Good Thing yet wished to remain anonymous has been harrassed and now needs to move house. For no benefit, and certainly no public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The newspaper, which would be signed up to the code. Leveson 1 spelt out the outlines of such an organisation, of which the IPSO is not. It is of course true that the front of someone's property is not 'private', in the sense that anybody can see it. However, there are times when it is not appropriate to reveal details about a person, and one such situation is when it may pose a risk to that person's safety. I know that we have very different opinions on this topic, so I don't expect to agree. I have read your comments on press regulation before, and you make some good points. I assume that by 'You? Me?' you are referring to the difficulty of regulating information in a time when anyone with a keyboard or a smart phone is in some way a 'publisher', and I agree this is difficult. However, I believe that there need to be genuine forms of redress when newspapers overstep a line. That line may not be a legal line, but a moral one. The paper has committed no crime in this instance. Yet, ultimately, a person who did an unambiguously Good Thing yet wished to remain anonymous has been harrassed and now needs to move house. For no benefit, and certainly no public interest. It's not just information at a time when...blah blah. Public information is not private. Electoral registers (very on topic) are matters of public record, for instance. Your argument is distinctly worrying, it being that anyone should be able to control the press's release of all and any type of information about them (should they wish to claim anonymity or some risk from a third party to their safety, for instance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 I was taught that there is a balance when it cones to the 'in the public interest' argument. There are things you need to look for, is it a public owned company, is what happened going to affect general people - and so on. Most of the time now, 'public interest' seems to have skewed towards government or paper interest. It is wrong and the time has come for press regulation - I think it needs to be in the form of an apology / redaction of any lie to be the sane size, on the same page - and an independent team to hand out massive fines. The press is corrupt. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 11 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I'm starting to think Corbyn doesn't actually think he can win this election. What is the point in him campaigning in Birmingham, what exactly is that going to achieve. Corbyn (or his cronies) don’t seem to like reaching out to people who won’t be his supporters. But thats always been his problem. He should literally have been in Scotland 24/7 for the last year. But as said previously he’s a little work shy. Mind you after recent voting maybe Birmingham and the West Midlands are turning back to what they were in Chamberlain jnr’s day.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 7 hours ago, NurembergVillan said: Stuff like this has been going on for ever; people seem shocked that political parties are up to media manipulation. Mind you according to Diane Abbott thats probably at least 100000 people.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, PauloBarnesi said: Stuff like this has been going on for ever; people seem shocked that political parties are up to media manipulation. Mind you according to Diane Abbott thats probably at least 100000 people.... It's funny that this is literally the only thing people use on Labour this May. But I guess Tories won't have a brain fart because they don't have sums and costings to remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) When the election was announced and the polls were twenty odd points apart I almost posted in here that they would narrow slowly and consistently until the day of the election when everyone would think we had a genuine contest on our hands. I think that's partly down to the parties getting there messages across and being "heard" in a way they weren't before. But also partly down to the fact that polling in the UK at least is complete horse manure IMO. There was a quote from someone famous I've forgotten saying if they wanted to control public opinion they wouldn't buy a newspaper they would buy a polling company. A narrowing of polls helps Tories because an element of jeopardy will bring out those who may have stayed at home and protect against hubris. Or the now two million newly registered voters is having a real effect which is being reflected in the polls. Delete as your pre existing biases prescribe. Edited May 21, 2017 by villaglint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 I never trust polls, I don't think they work in this day and age. I've also never met anybody who has been polled in 10 years of campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted May 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted May 21, 2017 1 hour ago, PauloBarnesi said: Mind you according to Diane Abbott thats probably at least 100000 people.... About -20,000,000,000 people there, according to the bloke meant to be running our economy. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 1 hour ago, PauloBarnesi said: Stuff like this has been going on for ever; people seem shocked that political parties are up to media manipulation. Mind you according to Diane Abbott thats probably at least 100000 people.... good job they didn't ask the Tory guy in charge of all those damn numbers thing, hammond isn't it, it would have been a few trillion people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 anyhow May has taken to social media to use her special skills and show the people how rumours of her being unhinged are rubbish, but if 'she' loses just six seats she recons the world is going to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 This dementia tax is bloody inhumaine. Theresa May **** you, disgusting you witch introducing something so vile. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 52 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said: anyhow May has taken to social media to use her special skills and show the people how rumours of her being unhinged are rubbish, but if 'she' loses just six seats she recons the world is going to end. She is strong and stable, yet won't debate the weak and dangerous Corbyn. That tells you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 The Tories are bad ideas galore, from energy market price caps on SVTs (in fairness this is a bad idea shared by a number of parties), to the dementia tax, to scrapping free schools meals, it seems to me that they have totally lost control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts