[Politics] Brexit

[Herr Tubthumper]

We have people trying to derail Brexit, and now we have campaigns to get companies to stop advertising in the Daily Mail, so now they are trying to tell us all what to read as well. Stop fing telling people what to do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37962425

Do you see the irony of this post?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Not following British law is not "illegal?" Again, this is a new one on me.

I'm surprised that you've never heard of a legal challenge before. The government felt it was acting within the law, the challenge came and was upheld. So until that moment came, there was not a clear legal position. The government may well win the appeal.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Personally I think the mail is an appalling rag but the kind of pressure bright by this group is IMO dangerous. It is giving a green light for all kinds of social media 'popular' causes, to exercise censorship etc for things they don't like. I feel very uncomfortable with this decision by Lego.

Asking companies to stop advertising is not censorship. And it's no different to companies bombarding me with requests to buy stuff.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Do you see the irony of this post?

Care to explain? I've looked a couple of times and can't see any irony there.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Asking companies to stop advertising is not censorship. And it's no different to companies bombarding me with requests to buy stuff.

Yes, I do take your point, it is not censorship. But I am fearful that censorship may be a result of these kind of actions. I don't want the more mainstream media (don't care much about the mail) to have to tread carefully in the hope that they won't upset anyone.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm surprised that you've never heard of a legal challenge before. The government felt it was acting within the law, the challenge came and was upheld. So until that moment came, there was not a clear legal position. The government may well win the appeal.

The position was and is clear, as demonstrated a week ago. A frivolous legal challenge doesn't imply a lack of clarity.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Care to explain? I've looked a couple of times and can't see any irony there.

You post was about social media groups telling people what they should and shouldn't do. And your last sentence was an instruction telling people what to do.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The position was and is clear, as demonstrated a week ago. A frivolous legal challenge doesn't imply a lack of clarity.

I don't think that we are going anywhere here. Yes, as things stand, the government was planning on acting in a manner that was not lawful. However, the only frivolous challenge was ms miller's as its only purpose was to hold up Brexit. As said earlier in this thread, MPs will most probably have to vote on a less than finished version of Brexit, and then negotiations will continue before we finally leave.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't think that we are going anywhere here. Yes, as things stand, the government was planning on acting in a manner that was not lawful. However, the only frivolous challenge was ms miller's as its only purpose was to hold up Brexit. As said earlier in this thread, MPs will most probably have to vote on a less than finished version of Brexit, and then negotiations will continue before we finally leave.

She won what turned out to be a very clear case. How is this frivolous? It's also worth noting that she brought this case jointly with a group of people who voted to leave. Aside from wanting the govement to adhere to its own rules what was their motive?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

She won what turned out to be a very clear case. How is this frivolous? It's also worth noting that she brought this case jointly with a group of people who voted to leave. Aside from wanting the govement to adhere to its own rules what was their motive?

I believe it to be frivolous because it will in the end prove pointless. I'm fine with it though and I believe the government above all, should obey the law. But you are aware, I'm sure, that there are many laws which are 'broken' or not adhered to until a challenge has clarified. As for motivation, I think it comes with a lack of acceptance of the Brexit decision. So many people have proved themselves to be democrats of convenience. She, and the others were just lashing out because they could.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

You post was about social media groups telling people what they should and shouldn't do. And your last sentence was an instruction telling people what to do.

It wasn't my post but thanks, I see.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I believe it to be frivolous because it will in the end prove pointless. I'm fine with it though and I believe the government above all, should obey the law. But you are aware, I'm sure, that there are many laws which are 'broken' or not adhered to until a challenge has clarified. As for motivation, I think it comes with a lack of acceptance of the Brexit decision. So many people have proved themselves to be democrats of convenience. She, and the others were just lashing out because they could.

I agree about some laws being vague until challenged. I totally get that. But it was shown last week this wasn't the case here. It is clear what the law was and is. And you say a lack of acceptance was the motive. But as I pointed out the governmental challenge was brought not just by Gina Miller but her and two others. At least one of the others voted to leave. What was their motive?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree... especially as I'm away and the missus wants some attention Have a good evening.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree... especially as I'm away and the missus wants some attention [emoji106]

[emoji12]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It wasn't my post but thanks, I see.

Oh. Sorry.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

I'm away and the missus wants some attention

say no more!

 

[pastafarian]

Personally I think the mail is an appalling rag but the kind of pressure bright by this group is IMO dangerous. It is giving a green light for all kinds of social media 'popular' causes, to exercise censorship etc for things they don't like. I feel very uncomfortable with this decision by Lego.

finding it all a bit sinister, having looked at the groups facebook page the aim seems to be to start a domino effect of advertisers that pull out of advertising in the mail,express and sun so they can no longer operate.........if thats not censorship by the back door im not sure what is.
its very similar to uni campuses stopping people speaking/lecturing because that persons opinion is not liked.
all a bit creepy

 

[nicko31]

Yes, I do take your point, it is not censorship. But I am fearful that censorship may be a result of these kind of actions. I don't want the more mainstream media (don't care much about the mail) to have to tread carefully in the hope that they won't upset anyone.

Inclined to agree. If these rags overstep the mark go to the regulator and they will deal with it, most are IPSO members

 

[Lincoln Imp]

finding it all a bit sinister, having looked at the groups facebook page the aim seems to be to start a domino effect of advertisers that pull out of advertising in the mail,express and sun so they can no longer operate.........if thats not censorship by the back door im not sure what is.
its very similar to uni campuses stopping people speaking/lecturing because that persons opinion is not liked.
all a bit creepy

I'm not disagreeing with you (and almost everyone else it seems) for the sake of it, but I don't understand the fuss.

The Mail adopts its editorial line of popular migrant bashing and low jingoism/high patriotism (delete to taste) for reasons of financial expediency. It is a marketing tool aimed at the demographic it wants to sell to. As the clever but apparently obnoxious Paul Dacre has said, the perfect cover headline to shift newspapers is one that makes the readers frightened or angry and preferably both. So if it is all right for the Mail to use that angle to make money why is it somehow wrong for others to use exactly the same angle against the company?

 

[portslade seagull]

I'm not disagreeing with you (and almost everyone else it seems) for the sake of it, but I don't understand the fuss.

The Mail adopts its editorial line of popular migrant bashing and low jingoism/high patriotism (delete to taste) for reasons of financial expediency. It is a marketing tool aimed at the demographic it wants to sell to. As the clever but apparently obnoxious Paul Dacre has said, the perfect cover headline to shift newspapers is one that makes the readers frightened or angry and preferably both. So if it is all right for the Mail to use that angle to make money why is it somehow wrong for others to use exactly the same angle against the company?

Just looking at the headlines on the Mail and Mirror which are at different ends of the spectrum are enough for me not to buy them and I never have

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'm not disagreeing with you (and almost everyone else it seems) for the sake of it, but I don't understand the fuss.

The Mail adopts its editorial line of popular migrant bashing and low jingoism/high patriotism (delete to taste) for reasons of financial expediency. It is a marketing tool aimed at the demographic it wants to sell to. As the clever but apparently obnoxious Paul Dacre has said, the perfect cover headline to shift newspapers is one that makes the readers frightened or angry and preferably both. So if it is all right for the Mail to use that angle to make money why is it somehow wrong for others to use exactly the same angle against the company?

Your argument is ostensibly true and in this case, I agree with you. My difficulty is with the precedent it sets. If this is a sign of things to come, then it is IMO very dangerous as all kinds of censorship brought about by pressure groups such as this one, could ensue. I'm not sure fighting populism with another sort of populism is the answer.