Let’s have a 2 Tier BBC – one where you don’t pay the TV licence and another one where you don’t pay the TV licence . Will TTK – two tier kier stick – or will it pass as events come along – such as a big war in Iran or a big big war in Russia – even have two tier wars now ….
Weekend 17th August 2024
Bookmark the permalink.
Did I say scum or would that be Gethins?
I hope Codswallop will be bold enough to say something legally actionable about Musk.
All he has to do is post a sarcastic Tweet about her, that should be enough for a fit of the vapours and clutched pearls around the Grauniad’s cubicles, leading to endless articles about banning X as a far right haven of Nazis.
One reply
Is Callwalladr inciting the assassination of Musk?
LoftusStevetweets
Musk incited riots… by first commenting on them 4 days after the first riot.
If I was @carolecadwalla I’d probably have checked that before writing an article.
Meanwhile:
“Guardian journalist who retweets pro-Hamas social media account.
EXCLUSIVE: Newspaper’s pop culture columnist and podcast host Chanté Joseph shared posts casting doubt on scale of Hamas’ 7 October atrocities and promoted conspiracies about Jewish power.
A Guardian journalist has been sharing messages on social media from an account openly promoting Hamas atrocities against Israel, and which also features an image of paragliders on its profile.
Chanté Joseph, the Guardian’s pop culture columnist, also wrote, and prolifically shared posts casting doubts on the scale of the massacre committed by Hamas terrorists in Israel on 7 October that saw more than 1,400 women, children and men murdered, many tortured.
The journalist, whose profile is used to promote the Guardian brand in an advert screened in the reception of the media outlet’s London office, also posted and shared several conspiratorial claims about Jewish power and control. ”
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/guardian-journalist-retweets-pro-hamas-social-media-account/
“How the Guardian enables Owen Jones: Trans people are pawns in his narcissistic war.
I was reminded of that recently when Jones went on some mad rant, posting 33 tweets about me. Way to go, mate, if you don’t want to look obsessive and harassing. He wanted to rebut the idea that he had anything to do with me leaving the Guardian. The boring details are this: I chose to leave. I was not fired, but I found it intolerable to be censored for relatively mild views. I have never claimed to be cancelled or silenced. Do I think Owen was responsible for getting my “colleagues” to gang up and write a letter denouncing me? I can’t say. I certainly think he was responsible for creating the toxic atmosphere in which it happened. But he denies it and claims the letter was never about me, even though it was leaked to his mate Patrick Strudwick at Buzzfeed, who strangely seemed to think it was.
No need to go into all that again. I wrote at length about it here without once mentioning the twerp’s name. But suffice it to say that in 30 years of journalism, no one has spoken to me the way he did. Of course, anyone on Twitter will be aware he does this on a regular basis to women. That is why #OwenJonesIsAMisogynist started to trend this week, after Private Eye reported that an independent investigator brought in by the Guardian had upheld a complaint of bullying made against him by a female columnist, and that he is yet to face punishment.”
https://unherd.com/2022/04/how-the-guardian-enables-owen-jones/
“Why I had to leave The Guardian, If you were bullied by 338 colleagues, what would you do?”
https://unherd.com/2020/11/why-i-had-to-leave-the-guardian/?=refinnar
Guardian in 2014:
“Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter?
Jake Newsome was jailed last week for posting offensive comments online. His is the latest in a string of cases that have led to prison terms, raising concern that free speech may be under threat from over-zealous prosecutors”
The cases of Newsome and Riley are different. They did not target or menace individuals, and lawyers and human rights campaigners have this week raised concerns about their being jailed for causing offence.
Thomas Hughes, executive director of free speech organisation Article 19, said the charity is “extremely concerned by the number of arrests and prosecutions for comments made online in the UK. Nobody should go to prison simply for causing offence. This is not only our view but a violation of international legal standards that protect speech that shocks, offends or disturbs.” Jo Glanville, director of the writers’ network English Pen, said of Riley: “He hasn’t incited violence, there’s nothing around public order, so it’s purely for being tasteless. I think we’re seeing something new here. It’s a chill on freedom of expression. Causing some distress to members of the public shouldn’t be enough to get you a custodial sentence.”
Lawyer and legal blogger Lyndon Harris described Newsome’s case as “a knee jerk reaction by the CPS” and told the Guardian the law is “failing miserably. At what point does unpleasant become criminal? You’re just locking people up for saying nasty things. If someone said that to you in the pub and you went to the police, they’d tell you to go away.
Until the trial of Peter Nunn, accused in relation to tweets sent to the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the most celebrated social media case in this country is likely to remain that of accountant Paul Chambers. In 2012 Chambers was cleared on appeal on the grounds that a tweet in which he said he would blow up an airport, after being stranded en route to a date, was a joke and not a menace.
Chambers’ supporters included comedians Al Murray, Stephen Fry and Graham Linehan, and a benefit gig was held to fund his expenses. But the notion of free speech as a right to be defended online has been overshadowed by cases of misogynist threats and abuse.
“Why hasn’t there been more of an outcry about recent cases?” says David Allen Green of Preiskel & Co, who was Chambers’ solicitor. “The novelty of Twitter has worn off. Would you really want to argue in favour of someone making unpleasant comments about someone who has just died? These cases are less attractive, though some would say that’s when you need free-expression protections even more.””
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/13/jail-someone-for-being-offensive-twitter-facebook
And what did Starmer have to say to the Guardian at the time ?
“Former director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer, who issued new guidelines for social media cases exactly one year ago that stressed the high threshold for prosecutions, said “there needs to be a debate, the debate needs to take place in parliament and it needs to take place sooner rather than later”.
He believes his guidelines have done “a good job in difficult circumstances”, but politicians now need to step in.
“There always used to be a protected space, so you could say things in private you could not say in public. With social media there is no protected space, and that’s what there needs to be a debate about. The notions around place and reaction just don’t work with social media. You could have a situation where two people in their living room make remarks to each other for which they would never be arrested, but if they make these remarks by email, they could be, as the legislation covers any public electronic communication system.”
The law most often used in such cases, he points out, is an updated version of one from the 1930s that was designed to protect people working in telephone exchanges from obscene phone calls: “Eighty years on, it just doesn’t work. This hasn’t been seen as a priority in a time of austerity, but change is overdue. I’ve always thought that too many prosecutions for these kinds of offences can have the effect of chilling free speech.”
Lets hear that again from 2014 Starmer:
“Eighty years on, (the law) just doesn’t work. I’ve always thought that too many prosecutions for these kinds of offences can have the effect of chilling free speech.”