Let’s hear it for Sir Keir Starmer

I have just read that post and I probably do think that is an opinion. It's a list of things that the poster believes Starmer ignored. I may disagree but I think he or she is fine to say that( not that it is up to me but I probably agree with the mods unless there is a post I have missed). I think the entire country pretty much ignored the Saville issue despite I would say most of us feeling uncomfortable about him. I know every red flag in my head was waving.

Both, please stay.

However I would like you to stay Dickens, you cut through a lot of the nonsense

MayBee70

Doodledog

I understand your point of view, Dickens. This place has bee poisonous for some time. But please don't leave? We need voices from all perspectives, and you are always reasonable and well-informed.

If you really feel you must go, PM me an email address, at least?

Ditto.

Same

MayBee70

Chocolatelovinggran

Dickens and HPQ - your Gransnet needs you!👈

Seconded...

Thirded

I understand GN wishing for debate and discussion to continue. But when our Parliament, our makers of law, have decided such comments made against Keir Starmer relating to Jimmy Savile "are wrong and cannot be defended" and that they "should be withdrawn" and were "false and baseless personal slurs" why is it that parliament can continue discussion and debate without such comments but GN cannot?

I think everybody should be free to express their opinion. However, repeating that information again as though it were fact, having seen the clear evidence that it is not based on fact, is a deliberate lie to mislead others. That is very difficult to forgive.

Please don’t leave because the admins think people can repeatedly tell lies about this because it is their opinion, you two, because we need to keep refuting lies - people not doing that is what has got Trump where he is, and I think we can all do our bit to stop Gransnet going down that road.

Galaxy

I have just read that post and I probably do think that is an opinion. It's a list of things that the poster believes Starmer ignored. I may disagree but I think he or she is fine to say that( not that it is up to me but I probably agree with the mods unless there is a post I have missed). I think the entire country pretty much ignored the Saville issue despite I would say most of us feeling uncomfortable about him. I know every red flag in my head was waving.

Galaxy - I’m with you in always having found Saville raised red flags through out his career. At age 16 in 1965, I was allowed by my parents to get the bus with our responsible 17 year old neighbour, to go to a non alcohol club where records were played and we could dance. We had to get the 10pm bus home. My friend warned me the DJ might be Jimmy Saville so don’t go up with a record request and under no circs to accept an invitation to go backstage. Mind you, she said youre very tall and could pass for 17. He likes the 13 year olds.
I asked my dad about this. He was CID, chief inspector crime squad. Yes he said. Everyone knows but we’ve no complaints.

The evidence shows that when complaints were made, it was in different force areas, so the police were unaware and told girls they were the only complainant. It’s also relevant to remember we now have much more u derstanding - well, police and CPS do. Thanks in no small part to Starmer and Afzal

Yes I agree but I would say that is why the post will stand, because it was a general list about things Starmer 'ignored' whether I agree or not, all those issues were ignored by almost everyone.
I will be honest and say all sorts of things upset me, many said by posters on this thread but I think they should be able to speak.

Galaxy

I have just read that post and I probably do think that is an opinion. It's a list of things that the poster believes Starmer ignored. I may disagree but I think he or she is fine to say that( not that it is up to me but I probably agree with the mods unless there is a post I have missed). I think the entire country pretty much ignored the Saville issue despite I would say most of us feeling uncomfortable about him. I know every red flag in my head was waving.

There is a difference between ignoring something and being ignorant that it is happening. I think most of the country never met Savil in person, or observed him in real life. What we saw was his televised persona of an eccentric philanthropist making wishes come true for sick or deprived children. There wasn't the universal knowledge of paedophilia that there is today (which changed after his death, when victims felt they could tell their stories now that he was gone)

I was never keen on him as a performer because I never though he was genuinely philanthropic, but was going through the motions to increase his popularity and further his career. However, I didn't see him as attractive enough to be a danger to young and impressionable fans, like some of the boy bands and soloists whose dressing-rooms were mobbed by admiring adolescent girls. Of course it later was revealed that his prey were those who would probably not have been able to mob a dressingroom, or were not even aware of what he was up to, and that there were mothers who brought their children backstage to meet him and were perfectly happy to leave them alone with him - I would never have done that!

Galaxy

I have just read that post and I probably do think that is an opinion. It's a list of things that the poster believes Starmer ignored. I may disagree but I think he or she is fine to say that( not that it is up to me but I probably agree with the mods unless there is a post I have missed). I think the entire country pretty much ignored the Saville issue despite I would say most of us feeling uncomfortable about him. I know every red flag in my head was waving.

I think that anywhere else it would be easily proved to be libel

Libel refers to defamatory statements that are published in a permanent form, such as written words, printed media, or online content. Libel involves a more enduring form of communication, and it generally includes any written or broadcasted statements that harm an individual's reputation.

To establish a claim for either libel, the claimant typically must prove that:

1. The statement was defamatory (i.e., it harmed their reputation).

2. The statement was published to a third party (in libel cases, this is often more straightforward due to the nature of permanent records).

I understand that currently internet publishers are exempt. However, how long can that last?

I understand that there are those who repeat as fact things that they have read or heard, and don't check at even a rudimentary level. I also understand that people can believe things that turn out to be wrong - I'm sure all of us have done that at times.

The difference here is that this lie has been corrected numerous times, with evidence to back up the corrections, so it is not a mistake or a misunderstanding- it is deliberate.

PoliticsNerd 👍🏻

I'm sorry that Dickens and HPQ are leaving/have left Gransnet. I have always found their posts to be interesting and informative. I do understand how they feel though.

There were numerous cases of libel on the thread about the 50 something year old woman who was visited by police for her speech, very regular posters were involved in it. It is interesting what is seen as problematic and what isnt. I have always supported the moderators on their commitment to facilitating speech.

Wyllow3

Both, please stay.

Oh yes, we need you here.

Galaxy

There were numerous cases of libel on the thread about the 50 something year old woman who was visited by police for her speech, very regular posters were involved in it. It is interesting what is seen as problematic and what isnt. I have always supported the moderators on their commitment to facilitating speech.

Were the posts you call libellous on that thread because of misunderstanding, repeating the Daily Express (?) line on the story, or were they repeating allegations that had already been shown to be untrue?

Oh they were a mixture of both, it was fascinating to watch.

Galaxy - I say this in the nicest possible way - but your cryptic posts are so frustrating .

How can we know what you are talking about if you don't tell us? When you do spell out what you are getting at I tend to agree with you more than disagree, but very often I pick up a general tone of disapproval without an understanding of what it is that you are criticising.

I was on the thread you refer to, and for all I know I am being accused of libel - 'some people' accusations make people feel like that. What I saw were people (including you) repeating what they had read in differing sources. Assuming that everyone was right when they said 'I read in the XYZ that . . .' they weren't committing libel. They were reporting what they had read.

I cant remember which posters it was doodledog, but nobody reported the libel on the 50 year old woman thread. There were numerous repetitions of the oh but she also said racist things (when in fact that was the MP) despite a number of us saying over and over again IT WAS THE MP. There was also a lot of hints that she may have said something worse and probably got what was coming to her. I am paraphrasing here. They were told again and again that they had got it wrong, if I remember rightly I probably even mentioned libel.
Control of speech is often about 'sides' which is why I dont like it. I want the moderators to moderate not posters.
I dont view ceryain posters as the good guys and dont want them to decide what speech is ok.

Iam64

MayBee70

Chocolatelovinggran

Dickens and HPQ - your Gransnet needs you!👈

Seconded...

Thirded

Fourth-ed.
No such word but that hasn’t stopped me! 😁

Yes Dickens is one of the posters who is supported by all 'sides' of the political debate, that is quite a skill. Was it Lucca? I think who was similar.

I wasn’t going to comment on the Saville - Starmer thing

Then I remembered that a long standing and much loved GN member has been permanently banned for a post similar to the one on this thread.

It appears that the goal posts may have shifted?

Cossy

As for farmers, yes I have some empathy for them, but never really understood why their farms were completely exempt from inheritance tax. Personally, I’d get rid of it completely.

Those with livestock on smaller farms have been in financial crisis for many years.

Agreed.

However, I don't understand farming or IHT in this thread.

Control of speech is often about 'sides' which is why I dont like it. I want the moderators to moderate not posters.
Yes, I totally understand that, and agree. I think the tendency can be to notice more when someone says something that is offensive to your (one's) own POV, whereas other things pass almost unnoticed, or with a slight eye-roll.

I dont view ceryain posters as the good guys and dont want them to decide what speech is ok.
I don't think anyone does. I'm not sure who 'certain' posters are, but I guess it's much as I said above - those who say things we (generic) agree with - or don't object to, anyway.

I do think, however, that critical reading requires a certain amount of differentiation when it comes to posters, just as it does with any sources of information. I am much more likely to question what appears in some publications than others, and in the same way, if I have 'known' a poster for years, and seen her be reasonable and open-minded, if I see a post that suggests otherwise, I would read it very carefully to see if I had misunderstood, then ask for clarification before arguing. That doesn't mean I think that posters should police the boards though. I've seen that end very badly before.