Darren Grimes

245

Comments

  • joe2019
    joe2019 Posts: 1,338
    I had to Google Darren Grimes, I'd never heard of him.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,314
    What do you mean "you people" :D
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,314
    I hadn't heard of this either. I think it depends on the content of the podcast, which I haven't listened to, and how Grimes framed it (it being Dr Starkey said slavery was not genocide because there are "so many damn blacks").

    If Grimes was saying "guys Starkey is a massive rasist and I have proof, listen to this", then fair enough.

    Whereas if Starkey said what he said and Grimes replied, "hmm good point", then chose the publish that podcast (that's key I think, he's in control of deciding to publish it. It's not a live interview where the guest says something outrageous), it's fair to ask what his motive is in doing that.

    Haven't listened though so no idea whether the police have any business being involved.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,230
    He sat there like this:


  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,638
    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited October 2020
    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Fair enough. May be true in some cases. Where do you stand on this particular case? Do you think the police have any business asking Grimes to attend for interview under caution? Do you think there are any wider implications?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,638
    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Fair enough. May be true in some cases. Where do you stand on this particular case? Do you think the police have any business asking Grimes to attend for interview under caution? Do you think there are any wider implications?
    I don't know enough of the details to know whether it's justified or not. Surely that is part of the point of the interview - to establish whether further investigation is required. I think claiming it as some new crackdown on free speech is a bit premature, and certainly not new.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Could be something as mundane as the law trying to catch up with modern tech. If the DM had printed this interview would they have been in breach of something. Should Grimes be considered a publisher and held to the same standards/laws?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,612
    Is this not just an example of fringes on both sides winding each other up?

    I think a key feature of the culture wars is goading the extreme fringes into doing something extreme and use that as a straw man to taint the whole “side”?

    I think anyone reasonably thinks this is just stupid on all sides.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,596
    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.
    There are undoubtedly some people who fall into this category but I think it's a mistake to assume that it's a general theme or to create the impression that those of us who are criticising the involvement of the police in this case can automatically be assumed to be hypocrites who were cheerleading the Tories when they were riding roughshod over parliamentary traditions.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,490
    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,230
    This will boost his brand anyway, which is all he cares about.

    The rest of us should be concerned about the police taking this matter up (unless it turns out to be a nothing story).

    Of course, Grimes also believed that the supreme court overturning prorogation was the death of democracy.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    kingstongraham said:

    This will boost his brand anyway, which is all he cares about.

    The rest of us should be concerned about the police taking this matter up (unless it turns out to be a nothing story).

    Of course, Grimes also believed that the supreme court overturning prorogation was the death of democracy.

    Yes, I hardly think he'll be disappointed, but it goes back to what I was saying earlier about how hate speech laws rarely have the intended effect.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Pross said:

    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

    There has to be an actual law in place that he could have potentially broken. My problem is with the law.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.
    I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Fair enough. May be true in some cases. Where do you stand on this particular case? Do you think the police have any business asking Grimes to attend for interview under caution? Do you think there are any wider implications?
    I don't know enough of the details to know whether it's justified or not. Surely that is part of the point of the interview - to establish whether further investigation is required. I think claiming it as some new crackdown on free speech is a bit premature, and certainly not new.
    The very fact the law exists is the crackdown.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Could you give me an example of 'the same people'?

    I'm against the police's actions but only because I'm against hate speech laws in the first place. I'm not going really blame the police for doing their job.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    TheBigBean said:

    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

    Could you give me a link to the particular article you're referring to?

    I have no particular liking for Charlie Hebdo but I think they are unfairly maligned as racist while I also think the cartoons of Muhammed were particularly foolish. However, as soon as they had been murdered, the rights and wrongs of the cartoons became irrelevant to me.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,490
    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

    There has to be an actual law in place that he could have potentially broken. My problem is with the law.
    Did the law in question go through due process in Parliament (as opposed to being one of the current trend of being pushed through using emergency powers)? If so then we need to accept it. We all have laws we don't like.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

    There has to be an actual law in place that he could have potentially broken. My problem is with the law.
    Did the law in question go through due process in Parliament (as opposed to being one of the current trend of being pushed through using emergency powers)? If so then we need to accept it. We all have laws we don't like.
    Laws are made and repealed all the time. Usually they're repealed because people don't accept them.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,596
    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

    Could you give me a link to the particular article you're referring to?

    I have no particular liking for Charlie Hebdo but I think they are unfairly maligned as racist while I also think the cartoons of Muhammed were particularly foolish. However, as soon as they had been murdered, the rights and wrongs of the cartoons became irrelevant to me.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

    Could you give me a link to the particular article you're referring to?

    I have no particular liking for Charlie Hebdo but I think they are unfairly maligned as racist while I also think the cartoons of Muhammed were particularly foolish. However, as soon as they had been murdered, the rights and wrongs of the cartoons became irrelevant to me.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
    If I were an editor I wouldn't publish anti-semitic cartoons or the ones depicting Mohammed (though I wouldn't make either illegal) but the 'welfare queen' one was obviously not mocking the women rather than rightwingers who complain about immigrants getting handouts).

    One set of cartoons mocks a religion and one set of cartoons says that people belonging to a certain religion or ethnicity have bad characteristics. There's an obvious difference. Charlie Hebdo were up in front of the courts several times and the courts could also see this difference

    Also, Glenn Greenwald, two days after the staff were murdered.Classy.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited October 2020
    Pross said:

    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

    So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all then all they needed to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,596
    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

    Could you give me a link to the particular article you're referring to?

    I have no particular liking for Charlie Hebdo but I think they are unfairly maligned as racist while I also think the cartoons of Muhammed were particularly foolish. However, as soon as they had been murdered, the rights and wrongs of the cartoons became irrelevant to me.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
    If I were an editor I wouldn't publish anti-semitic cartoons or the ones depicting Mohammed (though I wouldn't make either illegal) but the 'welfare queen' one was obviously not mocking the women rather than rightwingers who complain about immigrants getting handouts).

    One set of cartoons mocks a religion and one set of cartoons says that people belonging to a certain religion or ethnicity have bad characteristics. There's an obvious difference. Charlie Hebdo were up in front of the courts several times and the courts could also see this difference

    Also, Glenn Greenwald, two days after the staff were murdered.Classy.
    You either agree someone has the right to be offensive or you don't. If you think that everyone has this right, then you don't get to decide what is and isn't offensive.

    Your position seems to be that it was ok to offend some muslims, because they shouldn't have been offended as it was only the religion that was being mocked. If you subsequently argue against other forms of free speech, then I think you are being hypocritical.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,612
    edited October 2020
    shortfall said:

    Pross said:

    Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

    So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?
    Yeah it is a problem.

    I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

    This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

    That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

    This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

    The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

    I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Many Je Suis Charlie fans were keen on freedom of speech until it was something that offended them. There's an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on this.

    I haven't worked out where I stand on the whole thing, but I dislike the hypocrisy that is frequently present.

    Could you give me a link to the particular article you're referring to?

    I have no particular liking for Charlie Hebdo but I think they are unfairly maligned as racist while I also think the cartoons of Muhammed were particularly foolish. However, as soon as they had been murdered, the rights and wrongs of the cartoons became irrelevant to me.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
    If I were an editor I wouldn't publish anti-semitic cartoons or the ones depicting Mohammed (though I wouldn't make either illegal) but the 'welfare queen' one was obviously not mocking the women rather than rightwingers who complain about immigrants getting handouts).

    One set of cartoons mocks a religion and one set of cartoons says that people belonging to a certain religion or ethnicity have bad characteristics. There's an obvious difference. Charlie Hebdo were up in front of the courts several times and the courts could also see this difference

    Also, Glenn Greenwald, two days after the staff were murdered.Classy.
    You either agree someone has the right to be offensive or you don't. If you think that everyone has this right, then you don't get to decide what is and isn't offensive.

    Your position seems to be that it was ok to offend some muslims, because they shouldn't have been offended as it was only the religion that was being mocked. If you subsequently argue against other forms of free speech, then I think you are being hypocritical.


    I literally just said I wouldn't publish either cartoon but I wouldn't make the publishing of either illegal. And, yes, I do get to decide what I personally find offensive just as Muslims and any other followers of religions do. Offence being subjective is one of the many reasons why we should think twice before legislating in this area.

    The difference is that anti-semitic cartoons of the kind in Glenn Greenwald's article would most likely result in prosecution under anti-racism laws whereas depicting Mohammed wouldn't (and didn't). If we can't see the difference between mocking a religion and mocking its followers (again, both should be allowed) we're in a worse position than I thought.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    shortfall said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    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.
    Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?
    Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."
    Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.
    There are undoubtedly some people who fall into this category but I think it's a mistake to assume that it's a general theme or to create the impression that those of us who are criticising the involvement of the police in this case can automatically be assumed to be hypocrites who were cheerleading the Tories when they were riding roughshod over parliamentary traditions.
    LOL - unless you are a back bench Tory mp then I was not referring to you.

Categories