Darren Grimes

124

Comments

  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    I didn't say that. Nazi Germany was simply an example of a police state where laws were selectively enforced. It's actually pretty common in dictatorships for police to severely enforce one law while standing around when others are broken. I don't get the accusations of hypocrisy against Shortfall.

  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.
    Well actually whether they are reasonable or not is kind of irrelevant to the overall point. I was just explaining what I believe to be Shortfall's position.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    In other news, one of the mothers of Plaza de Mayo complained that the police weren't doing enough to stop street robberies. What a hypocrite.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,689
    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    I didn't say that. Nazi Germany was simply an example of a police state where laws were selectively enforced. It's actually pretty common in dictatorships for police to severely enforce one law while standing around when others are broken. I don't get the accusations of hypocrisy against Shortfall.

    Stop digging....
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,242
    I could see that as it relates to the USA currently, but struggle to see the parallels in the UK.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,242
    The police are over zealous in enforcement against those who would be the current government's natural supporters, but lenient on those who would naturally oppose the current government?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    I didn't say that. Nazi Germany was simply an example of a police state where laws were selectively enforced. It's actually pretty common in dictatorships for police to severely enforce one law while standing around when others are broken. I don't get the accusations of hypocrisy against Shortfall.

    Stop digging....
    For someone who has studied history, you are surprisingly ignorant of it.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    rick_chasey said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.
    I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.
    With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?
    I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.
    Ok so I've fired up my desktop which makes searching easier. So far in terms of civil liberties, freedom of speech and policing I can see I've defended Laurence Fox right to freedom of expression after his QT appearance (the one that precedes the BLM protests) I've defended the freedom of the press and criticised the Levinson Report and Hacked Off et al, I've criticised the BBC for dropping Andrew Neil (THE best political interviewer and the one man who can hold politicians to account when parliament consistently fails to do so) I've criticised Shami Chakrabati (of all people) in a thread about the New Zealand shootings and her calls for censorship of the far right. I've also been critical of the police in several discussions including the London Bridge murders and the Manchester Arena Bombing. I got as far back as 2017 and got bored searching as I have better things to do on my day off, but I think there's a consistent pattern of dissent in the views I have expressed and the topics raised in this thread and are nothing new for me.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,689
    Oh there's certainly a consistent pattern, Short.
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    shortfall said:

    rick_chasey said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.
    I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.
    With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?
    I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.
    Ok so I've fired up my desktop which makes searching easier. So far in terms of civil liberties, freedom of speech and policing I can see I've defended Laurence Fox right to freedom of expression after his QT appearance (the one that precedes the BLM protests) I've defended the freedom of the press and criticised the Levinson Report and Hacked Off et al, I've criticised the BBC for dropping Andrew Neil (THE best political interviewer and the one man who can hold politicians to account when parliament consistently fails to do so) I've criticised Shami Chakrabati (of all people) in a thread about the New Zealand shootings and her calls for censorship of the far right. I've also been critical of the police in several discussions including the London Bridge murders and the Manchester Arena Bombing. I got as far back as 2017 and got bored searching as I have better things to do on my day off, but I think there's a consistent pattern of dissent in the views I have expressed and the topics raised in this thread and are nothing new for me.
    I was going to say, as far back as I remember, you've been pretty consistent on this. Just another example of Rick Chasey's dishonesty. I'm still waiting for him to explain why I'm a hypocrite regarding free speech.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,689
    shortfall said:

    rick_chasey said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.
    I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.
    With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?
    I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.
    Ok so I've fired up my desktop which makes searching easier. So far in terms of civil liberties, freedom of speech and policing I can see I've defended Laurence Fox (right wing) right to freedom of expression after his QT appearance (the one that precedes the BLM protests) I've defended the freedom of the press and criticised the Levinson Report and Hacked Off et al (bunch of leftie lovies, so yes, I can see why your criticised them), I've criticised the BBC for dropping Andrew Neil ( who is right wing) (THE best political interviewer and the one man who can hold politicians to account when parliament consistently fails to do so) I've criticised Shami Chakrabati (of all people) in a thread about the New Zealand shootings and her calls for censorship of the far right ((so this is defending right wingers again) . I've also been critical of the police in several discussions including the London Bridge murders and the Manchester Arena Bombing. I got as far back as 2017 and got bored searching as I have better things to do on my day off, but I think there's a consistent pattern of dissent in the views I have expressed and the topics raised in this thread and are nothing new for me.
    _
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,742
    I'd be interested to know what part of the interview might be inciting hatred. I'm assuming it's just the use of the phrase "damn blacks" which Starkey has explained away - ok not entirely convincingly - as being his attempt to emphasise the numbers rather than as a racial slur.

    I did wonder if they considered arguing slavery was not a genocide was an offence.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,657
    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    It's not like there aren't other examples to choose from.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,314
    shortfall said:

    rick_chasey said:

    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.
    I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.
    With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?
    I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.
    Ok so I've fired up my desktop which makes searching easier. So far in terms of civil liberties, freedom of speech and policing I can see I've defended Laurence Fox right to freedom of expression after his QT appearance (the one that precedes the BLM protests) I've defended the freedom of the press and criticised the Levinson Report and Hacked Off et al, I've criticised the BBC for dropping Andrew Neil (THE best political interviewer and the one man who can hold politicians to account when parliament consistently fails to do so) I've criticised Shami Chakrabati (of all people) in a thread about the New Zealand shootings and her calls for censorship of the far right. I've also been critical of the police in several discussions including the London Bridge murders and the Manchester Arena Bombing. I got as far back as 2017 and got bored searching as I have better things to do on my day off, but I think there's a consistent pattern of dissent in the views I have expressed and the topics raised in this thread and are nothing new for me.
    I think for some the issue isn't that you don't think freedom of speech is a good thing, you have clearly spoken up for it in the past.

    It's the consistency of the type of issues that make you nervous. It seems quite one sided, as Rick has highlighted.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,619
    rjsterry said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    It's not like there aren't other examples to choose from.
    The trouble is people are less familiar with other examples.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,689
    edited October 2020
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    It's not like there aren't other examples to choose from.
    The trouble is people are less familiar with other examples.
    FWIW the entire structure of power and authority in Nazi Germany makes it entirely unsuitable for the kind of comparison Nick is making. Laws mean entirely different things in those contexts and so it's not an appropriate analogy.

    Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not, but the idea that nothing or nobody is above the law of the land and that the laws of the land are enforced evenly is not a given everywhere.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,619
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    It's not like there aren't other examples to choose from.
    The trouble is people are less familiar with other examples.
    FWIW the entire structure of power and authority in Nazi Germany makes it entirely unsuitable for the kind of comparison Nick is making. Laws mean entirely different things in those contexts and so it's not an appropriate analogy.

    Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not, but the idea that nothing or nobody is above the law of the land and that the laws of the land are enforced evenly is not a given everywhere.
    It was more of a general point rather than this specific case. I have no idea what people are arguing about on this thread.

    I find the limitations imposed on free speech an interesting discussion, but I don't think that is being discussed.



  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,689
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Ben6899 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Ben6899 said:

    nickice said:

    Pross said:

    nickice said:

    tailwindhome said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    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.

    Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:
    rick_chasey said:

    He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

    Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

    Not a like for like comparison.
    The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

    Any update on my not supporting free speech?
    I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

    Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.
    So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.
    Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

    You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

    You're better than that, Nick. Right?
    What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.
    Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

    Whereas I just think it's always shaky to say "that's how Nazi Germany started".

    I've been guilty of it in the past and have checked myself, before you go looking through Cake Stop...
    It's not like there aren't other examples to choose from.
    The trouble is people are less familiar with other examples.
    FWIW the entire structure of power and authority in Nazi Germany makes it entirely unsuitable for the kind of comparison Nick is making. Laws mean entirely different things in those contexts and so it's not an appropriate analogy.

    Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not, but the idea that nothing or nobody is above the law of the land and that the laws of the land are enforced evenly is not a given everywhere.
    It was more of a general point rather than this specific case. I have no idea what people are arguing about on this thread.

    I find the limitations imposed on free speech an interesting discussion, but I don't think that is being discussed.



    No you're right, it's mainly point scoring, as various people from either side of the culture wars are accusing the other side for being hypocritical.
    _
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Enforcing laws (any laws) unfailingly consistently is impossible in any situation.
    Like it or not, we exist in grey areas.
    Having been a sports referee for a number of years, you use ‘game management’ to apply the laws of the game with flexibility and judgement.
    Even in the same game, what is deemed acceptable changes. Communication is the key.
    Imagine if your life was assessed in minutiae. How many offences do you think you might unknowingly commit in any one day and how unpleasant would life be.
    I accept judgement makes these types of discussions very murky but no law can be enforced as consistently as you may like.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,657
    Turns out he's not going to be interviewed now. Still felt the need to post a long string of tweets about how awfully he's suffered from not actually being interviewed under caution.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    Turns out he's not going to be interviewed now. Still felt the need to post a long string of tweets about how awfully he's suffered from not actually being interviewed under caution.

    I think we can all agree that the person to come out of this the happiest will be Darren Grimes.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,682
    WhoTF is this Darren Grimes?

    Nah, forget that. I cannot be arrised. And don't want to up some no doubt pos' google stats either.

    I'll just assume he (?) is another Hatie Cockpins wannabe.
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    orraloon said:

    WhoTF is this Darren Grimes?

    Nah, forget that. I cannot be arrised. And don't want to up some no doubt pos' google stats either.

    I'll just assume he (?) is another Hatie Cockpins wannabe.

    Quite the opposite.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,901
    orraloon said:

    WhoTF is this Darren Grimes?

    Nah, forget that. I cannot be arrised. And don't want to up some no doubt pos' google stats either.

    I'll just assume he (?) is another Hatie Cockpins wannabe.


    Needs the publicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Grimes
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • spatt77
    spatt77 Posts: 324
    surrey_commuter said:

    nickice 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.
    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.

    That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
    If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    spatt77 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    nickice 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.
    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.

    That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
    If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.
    If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,915
    Wasnt it more that it was a particular fortuitous case for him where his twin hobbies of being a bit of a censored and being a stickler for what he sees as good parliamentary process over lapped?

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    surrey_commuter said:

    spatt77 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    nickice 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.
    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.

    That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
    If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.
    If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?
    Are you suggesting that was his motive? If not, your point is moot.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    surrey_commuter said:

    spatt77 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    nickice 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.
    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.

    That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
    If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.
    If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?
    You object to the procédure if you think in the long-term.

    There seems to be lack of understanding from some posters here: if you object to correct procedures not being used or object to something being illegal ( i do support upskirting being an offence)it doesn't mean you support the action they're trying to prohibit.

    It's the équivalent of saying that anyone who doesn't support criminalising adultery thinks cheating on your wife is OK.

Categories