Still, it's interesting to see the Daily Mail so keen to see a proposal ruled out on the grounds that it would violate human rights law.

 

That's not the impression I got - they's surely be one of the biggest victims of it?

That's not the impression I got - they's surely be one of the biggest victims of it?

 

"Enemies Of The People"

 

Yeah right....

"Enemies Of The People"

 

Yeah right....

 

How about 'enemies of most of Buzzjack' then? ;)

How about 'enemies of most of Buzzjack' then? ;)

 

Since when have I (or anyone) accused you of treason? Or being anti-democratic?

 

Self-pity much and blinkered. If you can't justify your views that's hardly our fault if we can. That suggests either you are self-deluded about your views or just very bad at expressing them. Personally I don't think it's the latter, you just choose to ignore true statements you don't like.

 

Like commenting that the rich EU-dwelling, UK tax-dodging owner of the Daily Mail, who's family have a history of far-right-views, called for giving British Courts total control over British law - until they got it and then suddenly they were traitors because he disagreed with the correct Legal Opinion.

 

This is a fact, however much you don't like hearing it.

Since when have I (or anyone) accused you of treason? Or being anti-democratic?

 

Self-pity much and blinkered. If you can't justify your views that's hardly our fault if we can. That suggests either you are self-deluded about your views or just very bad at expressing them. Personally I don't think it's the latter, you just choose to ignore true statements you don't like.

 

Like commenting that the rich EU-dwelling, UK tax-dodging owner of the Daily Mail, who's family have a history of far-right-views, called for giving British Courts total control over British law - until they got it and then suddenly they were traitors because he disagreed with the correct Legal Opinion.

 

This is a fact, however much you don't like hearing it.

 

I was calling the *Daily Mail* enemies of most of Buzzjack - nothing more - did you not see the smiley to indicate I was making a light-hearted comment?

That's not the impression I got - they's surely be one of the biggest victims of it?

How are the DM victims of the ECHR? Please confine your answer to events on this planet.

How are the DM victims of the ECHR? Please confine your answer to events on this planet.

 

I *meant* - they'd likely be one of the biggest victims of press regulation - I never mentioned the ECHR!

There is a conundrum in the UK free speech is not absolute. The press is not totally free. (D notices etc). Should a newspaper be allowed to report on a private individual who has committed no crime? The daily mail is not the most reputable or impartial news media, but should it matter what views they have? Should they be allowed to say anything. Also who owns the media? Do they advance their own agendas or do they reflect the wider society?

 

There are lots of questions. However a media owned by the few, which promotes a certain agenda that benefits that group can not really be deemed a free press. Where are the dissenting voices and the well researched journalism, free of partisan opinions? This is why especially in Scotland many people read alternative news blogs. The free press have already failed society. Press regulation doesn't really change anything, it's a veneer to hide the reality that until we change the ownership rules, and stop allowing huge interest to control the media including the BBC our media will always have a bias.

There is a conundrum in the UK free speech is not absolute. The press is not totally free. (D notices etc). Should a newspaper be allowed to report on a private individual who has committed no crime? The daily mail is not the most reputable or impartial news media, but should it matter what views they have? Should they be allowed to say anything. Also who owns the media? Do they advance their own agendas or do they reflect the wider society?

 

There are lots of questions. However a media owned by the few, which promotes a certain agenda that benefits that group can not really be deemed a free press. Where are the dissenting voices and the well researched journalism, free of partisan opinions? This is why especially in Scotland many people read alternative news blogs. The free press have already failed society. Press regulation doesn't really change anything, it's a veneer to hide the reality that until we change the ownership rules, and stop allowing huge interest to control the media including the BBC our media will always have a bias.

 

Problem is - how do you stop newspapers being owned by rich individuals, whether local or foreign?

 

Also, no matter what political stance a newspaper has, there will always be people of the opposite view who'll accuse it of being biased.

 

The only alternative would probably be newspapers so bland that no-one would want to read them in the first place... :lol:

But that is the point of a hate crime. You can't just flip it around. The inequality minority groups face can't be flipped around and be experienced by the majority group. There is the other dimension that not all crime by say whites against blacks, Asians, etc is a hate crime. There has to be a clear intent that the difference was a factor.

 

Inequality is a component of society, and those with privilege don't, and can't experience it.

 

Apologies for having to reply here, but the original thread seems to have been closed.

 

I agree that others cannot really appreciate what minority groups face - but that still doesn't give them the right to act in a similar manner themselves - surely you'd agree that the rule of law has to apply equally, whoever the perpetrators are?

I was calling the *Daily Mail* enemies of most of Buzzjack - nothing more - did you not see the smiley to indicate I was making a light-hearted comment?

 

Smiley? More like a one-eyed wincey!!

 

Smileys..

 

:rolleyes: :teresa: :dance: :P B-) ^_^ :D :) :lol:

Problem is - how do you stop newspapers being owned by rich individuals, whether local or foreign?

 

Also, no matter what political stance a newspaper has, there will always be people of the opposite view who'll accuse it of being biased.

 

The only alternative would probably be newspapers so bland that no-one would want to read them in the first place... :lol:

 

You pass a law saying: Rich foreign billionaires with ulterior distorting political motives shall not own newspapers, and British ones shall not be tax exiles.

 

That way they have an interest in UK PLC and not MeMyself&I PLC.

Piece of piss.

 

Bland NEWSpapers are NEWSpapers. Scandal-sheets and propaganda are more gossip-obsessed-sly-propagandists drawing in people prone to being influenced with claptrap (fairly obviously) with tidbits in order to manipulate them.

 

 

Smiley? More like a one-eyed wincey!!

 

Smileys..

 

:rolleyes: :teresa: :dance: :P B-) ^_^ :D :) :lol:

 

Don't look at me, I didn't *design* them. :P

You pass a law saying: Rich foreign billionaires with ulterior distorting political motives shall not own newspapers, and British ones shall not be tax exiles.

 

That way they have an interest in UK PLC and not MeMyself&I PLC.

Piece of piss.

 

Bland NEWSpapers are NEWSpapers. Scandal-sheets and propaganda are more gossip-obsessed-sly-propagandists drawing in people prone to being influenced with claptrap (fairly obviously) with tidbits in order to manipulate them.

 

1. Unfortunately the former have too many politicians in their pockets to pass such a law + it'd hardly be PC to ban foreign owners... :kink:

 

2. But the law you suggest wouldn't stop a British newspaper owner, living in the UK, from having a political agenda you object to.

 

3. But nobody would read boring newspapers, that's my point - like it or not, sensationalism sells.

A great day for a free and fair press': Bid to force new Leveson inquiry and make the press pay for the legal costs of cases even if they win are both rejected by MPs

 

Ed Miliband wanted to use a Data Protection Bill to start another Leveson inquiry

But, despite an animated speech, his move was voted down in Parliament

Culture Minister Matt Hancock hails a 'great day for a free and fair press'

Comedian John Cleese is mocked for saying he'll leave England over the issue

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-57...impossible.html

1. Unfortunately the former have too many politicians in their pockets to pass such a law + it'd hardly be PC to ban foreign owners... :kink:

 

2. But the law you suggest wouldn't stop a British newspaper owner, living in the UK, from having a political agenda you object to.

 

3. But nobody would read boring newspapers, that's my point - like it or not, sensationalism sells.

 

1. It would still be a piece of pass to resolve ands that makes it desirable. Negativism is merely that. Rich people don't have the right to decide what's best for the people, especially foreigners, that's for voters.

 

2. No it doesn't but I refer you back to my reasoning why this is not a problem.

 

3. Lots of people read "boring" newspapers. The better-informed ones. Dont care if sensationalism sells as long as it is British-owned and British-tax-paying sensationalism because of the reasons I refer to in 2.

A great day for a free and fair press': Bid to force new Leveson inquiry and make the press pay for the legal costs of cases even if they win are both rejected by MPs

 

Ed Miliband wanted to use a Data Protection Bill to start another Leveson inquiry

But, despite an animated speech, his move was voted down in Parliament

Culture Minister Matt Hancock hails a 'great day for a free and fair press'

Comedian John Cleese is mocked for saying he'll leave England over the issue

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-57...impossible.html

 

Leveson was needed to make newspaper-owners and staff who have flouted the law be seen for what they are and be charged. Now they have gotten away with it because the Tories need them.

 

The issue about making newspapers pay for court cases they lose was a stupid one and should never have been suggested because it gave the scummy press a complete Get Out Of Jail Free from the issues of the above. Funny that.....

A great day for a free and fair press': Bid to force new Leveson inquiry and make the press pay for the legal costs of cases even if they win are both rejected by MPs

 

Ed Miliband wanted to use a Data Protection Bill to start another Leveson inquiry

But, despite an animated speech, his move was voted down in Parliament

Culture Minister Matt Hancock hails a 'great day for a free and fair press'

Comedian John Cleese is mocked for saying he'll leave England over the issue

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-57...impossible.html

It would not be a "brand new enquiry", it would be the second part of the original one. That was originally postponed to allow legal proceedings to be completed but the government of the day - headed by Cameron and with May as Home Secretary - promised that it would be completed.

Oliver North, a military political officer who sold weapons to Iran in the 80's covertly, and then used the proceeds to fund anti-government forces in Nicaragua - he was guilty but got away with it by turning testimony in exchnage for a pardon - is now President of the NRA and has accused Florida teenagers campaigning not to be shot to death like their classmates "terrorists" because they want to have reasonable checks on people buying guns and stopping AR-15's, the mass-murderer weapons of choice.

 

Oliver North was a conscience-less interfering secretive lying little shit in the 80's and he now he's an old conscience-less interfering secretive little shit heading an organisation part-funded by secretive Russian money. Such an all-round US military hero example for all Americans to follow.....

 

Fund guerillas and support mass murderers, lie and commit illegal political acts involving guns and money-laundering, then head an organisation that calls kids terrorists as a means of deflecting attention from their own dodgy foreign dealings and funding.....

 

Sounds about right, and I can't think of anyone more perfect they could appoint to be President Of The NRA.

 

 

just look at this blatant BBC bias in favour of Tories. Not.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44074572

 

The evil May regime has no conscience at all, the ones who should be prosecuted are the virtual slave-masters not the victims chucked out the country in states of terror.