Freedom of speech

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Ankers, any one of us may post false information, so it's a question of whether we trust the informant. I have read many of the links posted by DJ and have found a lot of useful information. I read many other sources too, so can draw my own conclusions. The problems occur when national and international news sources are reporting post truths.

MB is right, it's up to us to cross-check and decide which sources we trust. Sometimes my security system warns me of an unsafe link posted in the Forum. Anyone can post what they like on the www and we should exercise caution, just as we teach children to be aware that not all sources are trustworthy.

The ultimate attempt at "whataboutery"?

Trump is a self publicist. He's built a huge business empire built on inherited money and determined self-promotion. Why else would he want to take part in a TV reality show?
He will presumably be keen to add consorting with the queen of England to his portfolio of photographs and videos. If he makes it in one piece to the other side of this role of President, he'll be back to full-on self promotion again, using the footage from his presidency to make more money. I don't want my parliament to be used in this way. And neither does John Bercow.

I have to say that I read few links ( often a time issue) and have to be very interested to follow it up via the link.I also only read links from a few posters.
That particular post ( deleted one) read to me like something made up by a blogger or fake news site.it's up to the poster to try their best to verify a link before putting it up, but sometimes common sense has to be relied on as well.

I won't have a problem as I've never mastered the art of link posting!!

You are missing the point ( yet again) JessM the question is about Bercow not doing his job properly, in saying what he thought himself, ahead of time! There would have been time to have had his own say later on( when Parliament has it's say on the matter.)That is, if Trump should even come to Westminster, as nothing has been arranged as yet, not even the date for a visit to the UK.

Ankers, re: Trump's lies. Not sure why I'm posting this on a thread about Bercow's decision, but the question was asked.

A very quick trawl on Google turned up this: Depends whether you trust The Guardian of course.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/donald-trump-lies-this-week-fact-check-climate-change-crime

Some of his statements during the campaign have now become 'lies' after the inauguration.

N.B.
“I’m proud of the fact that I’ve always treated the working people of this country with dignity and respect, especially our military and law enforcement personnel.” – 11 October, interview with Fox News

To take one example: he sacked a very senior lawyer, acting attorney general Sally Yates, for speaking against him when she pointed out that his actions re immigrants were unconstitutional.

He has subsequently raged against a Federal Judge in Seattle who ruled against his immigration order.

Is that how you treat 'law enforcement personnel with dignity and respect'? He lied.

It seems he's attempting to run the country the way he would run a company.

This thread is going around in circles....it may be better if some of us just say 'he failed to act properly and impartially in Parliament'
And others simply say ' we like what he said and don't care about his role of impartiality'.

Thanks Ginny42.

As far as I can make out he is still standing by his murder rate claim.
He says that the FBI statistics are not accurate.
Which would mean that he is not lying?

It could be said that he thinks he is acting with dignity and respect.
But I would have thought even he wouldnt really think so.

Just heard a depressing story straight from 1984.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/brief-encounter-clock-stilled-migrant-comments-row/

the {station} clock which played such a symbolic role in the 1945 British cinema classic Brief Encounter has been stilled - the victim of a very modern row over allegedly racist comments made by the man who until now kept it working

Jim Walker has been banned from key parts of the station at Carnforth, in Lancashire, after he was overheard by a member of the public talking about comments about child migrants and refugees.

“A visitor to the station who was with his family complained about insulting and racist comments made by Mr Walker

“He said that if action wasn’t taken he would report the matter as a hate crime to the police.”

Of course the sneak who wants to prevent free speech gets away with it, with his identity not disclosed!

Why didnt this arsehhole, if he felt so strongly, approach the pensioner and challenge his view? That would have been the honest
and humanitarian way to deal with it, and the traditional British way.

This absolutely underlines the appalling nature of the so called 'hate speech' laws. Its NOT clear cut, it allows anyone who 'dislikes' what someone says to make an accusation. Its entirely subjective and doesnt even bring in the 'reasonable man' factor.Bad law which needs repealing.

Of course you'd think that, wouldn't you?

There were witnesses to his racist comments so not the word of one person against another person.

Since when has it been the British way to not to report crimes/offensive behaviour and deal with it personally?

You have summed it up Roses, they are precisely the two views. I agree with JessM, I would not afford him the courtesy of addressing Parliament and I am please Bercow made this decision.

PM May invited him because she was seeking a trade deal, Trump was seeking publicity in my view. He saved the menu from their lunch (he collects menus) saying to an aide, 'I had lunch with the British PM today'. He told May how he wanted the trip to go, first a meeting with her before he met the Queen. Subsequently however, Speaker Bercow has decided he's not welcome in the House.

Anyway, he may be unable to visit as it seems he has a phobia about staircases. Apparently there is only a service lift in the Palace. It certainly isn't golden.

But you can't believe all you read in the Press.

I think I have said quite a bit about how I see the office of Speaker Fitzy and I certainly don't intend to be bullied by someone whatabouting.

Whoops - read a Mair diatribe by mistake. I do wish we had an ignore button. Luckily only needed to read a few lines to see that nothing had changed.

"There were witnesses to his {alleged}racist comments so not the word of one person against another person"

There are many nasty 'race obsessives' around now AB!

His comment was simply comparing the current wave of migrants unfavourably with the wartime 'kinder transport'. He was expressing a view in a private conversation which happened to be overheard; he wasnt shouting from a soapbox!

Make, what a very sad story. The conversation that is reported to have taken place does not seem to be racist to me, apparently he was comparing the two situations. Are people no longer allowed to question, compare, and discuss events without being labelled racist?
Roses, you are correct, there are two ways to view what the speaker said/did, you either agree with it or you don't.

I do wish we had an ignore button

We have, it's called Willpower!

Sorry, Mair

You have the added issue of what are called 'Clickbait Websites'.

These are web sites that mix some bits of a true story but insinuate and 'make up' other details to sew fear, purpose of propaganda, political spin etc.

They are usually conspiratorial in nature.

Then you have the concern of trolling.

' Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

We have to be very careful who/what we link to and be careful not to be so gullable into assuming 'ANY' poster has not directed us to a Fake News site, or repeated Fake News as has happened on GN.

For the purpose of openness I am going onto the Site Forum to engage GNHQ with this issue.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mair, you have the advantage, you know what he said, I do not, perhaps you would repeat what he said, naturally omitting anything which is against the law, you can use asterisks yes?

I do not know his precise words AB. It was discussed on the radio and I only heard what he said as reported speech.

He was overheard discussing a newspaper article which compared Jewish children arriving under the kindertransport and those, allegedly 'children', coming from Calais He said they were not comparable with the six-year-old Jewish children arriving on Kindertransport trains fleeing the Nazis. I suspect his actual wording was rather 'fruitier' given that its reported h has since said the heritage centre can 'b*** off' , but the point was this was still just a conversation between friends which happened to be overheard. He should have been warned to mind his language but not banned the first occasion this happened.

A conversation between friends heard by a family and other witnesses, for fruitier language you mean racist language yes? I doubt the fruitier language was a few swear words.

Why would anyone have the need to use racist comments