Forum home› Road cycling forum› The cake stop

Darren Grimes

shortfallshortfall Posts: 3,288
in The cake stop
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.
«1345

Posts

  • sungodsungod Posts: 15,611
    much as i loathe grimes, this seems like another small step toward a police state

    hope he tells them to shove it, ends up in court and wins, otherwise expect further abuse
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 18,370
    Haven't made up my mind about this.

    In principle there's a lot of grey area here, maybe less so in the facts of this case.



    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    shortfall said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

    I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

    It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.
  • vegas76vegas76 Posts: 268
    Darren Grimes and David Starkey... but utterly vile folks that are wasting my oxygen.
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 3,288
    vegas76 said:

    Darren Grimes and David Starkey... but utterly vile folks that are wasting my oxygen.

    And?
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    shortfall said:

    vegas76 said:

    Darren Grimes and David Starkey... but utterly vile folks that are wasting my oxygen.

    And?
    Most people struggle with the concept that free speech includes ideas you don't like or find reprehensible.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    vegas76 said:

    Darren Grimes and David Starkey... but utterly vile folks that are wasting my oxygen.

    And?
    Most people struggle with the concept that free speech includes ideas you don't like or find reprehensible.

    _
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    vegas76 said:

    Darren Grimes and David Starkey... but utterly vile folks that are wasting my oxygen.

    And?
    Most people struggle with the concept that free speech includes ideas you don't like or find reprehensible.

    Great. Find me one example of my advocating the banning of hate speech.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 18,370
    edited October 2020
    tailwindhome said:

    Haven't made up my mind about this.

    In principle there's a lot of grey area here, maybe less so in the facts of this case.






    Would we all accept these 2 statements*?

    1 - There are circumstances were words that are said are no longer covered by 'free speech' and it's right that these are treated as a criminal matter.

    2 - There are circumstances under which the actions of a 'journalist' cross the boundary of journalism and become a matter of publishing/broadcasting the words covered under 1




    *as opposed to thinking they apply in this particular case.


    As it goes I don't think the Grimes case meets the test in 1


    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 25,068
    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

    I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

    It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.
    Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 18,370
    Kid's gonna need a human right's lawyer.
    One of the them there do-gooders
    LOL
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    edited October 2020
    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Haven't made up my mind about this.

    In principle there's a lot of grey area here, maybe less so in the facts of this case.






    Would we all accept these 2 statements*?

    1 - There are circumstances were words that are said are no longer covered by 'free speech' and it's right that these are treated as a criminal matter.

    2 - There are circumstances under which the actions of a 'journalist' cross the boundary of journalism and become a matter of publishing/broadcasting the words covered under 1




    *as opposed to thinking they apply in this particular case.


    As it goes I don't think the Grimes case meets the test in 1


    Yes to 1: incitement to violence, harassment, threatening language etc though a lot of it depends on what is actually said and I've always thought the bar should be high when it comes to incitement to violence. Then in civil law things like defamation. These are tried and tested exceptions. I've always thought the best guide of this is the US First Amendment and judgments of the Supreme Court.

    I just don't think hate speech should be illegal as it unnecessarily stifles debate and the free exchange of ideas. It also, usually, backfires (pre-Nazi Germany had fairly modern hate speech laws).
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    tailwindhome said:

    Kid's gonna need a human right's lawyer.
    One of the them there do-gooders
    LOL

    He'll need a criminal lawyer. Human Rights lawyer comes much later.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

    I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

    It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.
    Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
    I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,978
    As it's going to come to nothing, it's the police's fault. There's nothing they should be investigating there (assuming that allowing Starkey a platform is the only thing he is being interviewed for). I don't think he's a journalist, just an opportunist.
  • vegas76vegas76 Posts: 268
    Neither Starkey nor grimes could possibly qualify as journalists. Neither of them have anything like a curious mind.

    Personally I'm glad that Starkey has paid a heavy price. His comments were grotesquely offensive.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    edited October 2020
    vegas76 said:

    Neither Starkey nor grimes could possibly qualify as journalists. Neither of them have anything like a curious mind.

    Personally I'm glad that Starkey has paid a heavy price. His comments were grotesquely offensive.

    I don't know much about Darren Grimes but David Starkey is a historian so I don't think he'd qualify as someone without ' a curious mind'.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    edited October 2020
    Who is this guy and why ought we care about him?

    Have none of the deets but presumably he’s been offensive, someone’s taken it too far and now he’s live-tweeting every twist and turn to make his point that you can’t be whatever-ism anymore?
    _
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    A quick google shows he’s a vote leave guy who gets very angry about lawyers defending human rights of people he doesn’t like.

    Is this about right?
    _
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,978
    rick_chasey said:

    A quick google shows he’s a vote leave guy who gets very angry about lawyers defending human rights of people he doesn’t like.

    Is this about right?

    He's an ex-liberal who saw an opportunity to make a name/few quid out of outrage for clicks, in Brexit and the follow on culture war.

    Interviewed Starkey and Starkey said something outrageous like he wanted.
  • vegas76vegas76 Posts: 268
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    A quick google shows he’s a vote leave guy who gets very angry about lawyers defending human rights of people he doesn’t like.

    Is this about right?

    He's an ex-liberal who saw an opportunity to make a name/few quid out of outrage for clicks, in Brexit and the follow on culture war.

    Interviewed Starkey and Starkey said something outrageous like he wanted.
    The irony of him inadvertently destroying a fellow compadre in the culture war is delicious.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    Right so what has he done wrong?
    _
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 3,288
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

    I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

    It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.
    Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
    Sorry this gross threat to free speech and freedom of expression is small beer because "covert surveillance". This is whataboutery on stilts, and coming from a man who normally likes to call out whataboutery it's even more egregious. Sungod and NickIce to their immense credit have managed to separate any personal dislike for the individuals concerned and the views they expressed (or gave a platform to) and recognised the much greater danger that is a menace to any free society. Voltaire must be turning in his grave. Not only do we now live in a country where the government can issue a decree that effectively locks us in our homes, forbids travel, destroys business, and allows the police to act as a militia enforcing these diktats (as well as jumped up jobsworths who destroy family funerals and private moments of immense grief with orders not to console your mother in her greatest time of need) we now live in a country where a journalist can be threatened with a police interview because of the answers his subject gave. Don't you even begin to comprehend what kind of a despotism we're sinking into if we continue to allow this?
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,978
    rick_chasey said:

    Right so what has he done wrong?

    He allowed Starkey to spout his nonsense on an interview he hosted. Nothing, really.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    Eh?
    _
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 18,370
    Wait, you think we *now* live in a country in which journalists would be subject to police attention?

    Ok
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,610 Lives Here
    Sorry I am confused. What does that starky interview have to do with the rozzers?
    _
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 3,288
    tailwindhome said:

    Wait, you think we *now* live in a country in which journalists would be subject to police attention?

    Ok

    No, this is just a more recent example of the Met sticking it's nose in where it shouldn't be.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,978
    edited October 2020
    rick_chasey said:

    Sorry I am confused. What does that starky interview have to do with the rozzers?

    The answer should be nothing - neither for Starkey nor Grimes. But he's been asked to report for an interview under caution in relation to it.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 25,068
    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    shortfall said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

    I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

    It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.

    Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
    I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.
    There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
Sign In or Register to comment.