Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Navy

And what super has also missed is that the statues and TV shows are not really the main focus of the protests. They are easy news bites to bring up but the meat of the protesters argument is about equality for black people.

I also don't think super is correct that just because you support BLM you don't also worry about atrocities committed in other spheres of life. It is just that currently the focus is on racism towards black people.

As much as he hates America, Super would really fit into their libertarian ways.

[super_realist]

Not really that one, because I can see why she is sacked for that because of Labour's long standing association with problems regarding Israel.
I was thinking more of people who have been sacked for simply liking a post such as the author who got sacked for appear to be in support of JK Rowling or that odious little twerp Owen Jones asking for someone to be sacked for simply liking a tweet.

[super_realist]

Have to agree with Super and Pal Joey here. A dog attacking someone (especially a 'dangerous' dog) needs proper force used against it.

If it had attacked my 2 year old daughter, I'd have killed it no question.

Careful Tattie, that sort of language will cause the illiberal left to have you sacked for having an opinion.

This is an example where I have a bit of a departure from my normal left of centre thinking (if it's considered Leftie to let an uncontrolled dog run amok, strange concept but hey ho)

If the dog attacked first then the victim (Super in this case) must react with the necessary (reasonable) force to protect his own safety. If that was deemed to be a hoof in the heat of the moment then that was what was required, the dog wasn't going to ease off and say..."I'll let you check the rules before I resume my attack" is it??

A Staffy is NOT a poor defenceless wee dog, its a potential killing machine, good luck to anyone trying to prize a pair of those jaws open once they lock on. You've either got to smack it as hard as you can in the nads or punch it between the eyes, a gentle "please leave me alone Rover" just won't cut it.

I vicious dog attack csman be horrendous. But, nothing realist has said makes me think he was on the end of a vicious attack. He hasn't said the dog clamped on around his balls with the dog swinging between his legs.  It sounds like a dog jumped up at him, and his reflexes were pretty slow, and he got nipped.  Sounds to me, like he made a big fuss over very little. Now I feel for super dog kicker, it probably wasn't nice though.

If you get bit in the balls you react first and check the damage later. I don't know why you are trying so hard to condemn me for this. If a dog bit your son, daughter, your own dog or something like that you'd probably kick it to death, but because it's me and you're a contrarian you can't be seen to support the action.
If my actions have desuaded that chav dog from approaching and biting anyone else then surely that's a good thing, or would you rather a 3 year old was bitten in the face?

[super_realist]

I was referring to the cancel culture pervasive in society these days JAS. If you dare to have an opinion different to the illiberal left them they try to get you fired.

Hmmm, you mean like sacking RLB for retweeting Maxine Peak??

Either way, I think you dealt with the dog pretty much as I would have done although I would hope I would have been alert enough to either avoid the attack or smack it one as it tried to attack.

I also thought I'd have been alert enough given the speed at which I run, but sometimes unexpected things happen.

[JAS]

Not really that one, because I can see why she is sacked for that because of Labour's long standing association with problems regarding Israel.
I was thinking more of people who have been sacked for simply liking a post such as the author who got sacked for appear to be in support of JK Rowling or that odious little twerp Owen Jones asking for someone to be sacked for simply liking a tweet.

Oh ok, so it's not straight down the line, you want to be able to pick and choose when the illiberal left should be allowed to be illiberal? :-p

[super_realist]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position. If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.

I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

[beninho]

Have to agree with Super and Pal Joey here. A dog attacking someone (especially a 'dangerous' dog) needs proper force used against it.

If it had attacked my 2 year old daughter, I'd have killed it no question.

Careful Tattie, that sort of language will cause the illiberal left to have you sacked for having an opinion.

This is an example where I have a bit of a departure from my normal left of centre thinking (if it's considered Leftie to let an uncontrolled dog run amok, strange concept but hey ho)

If the dog attacked first then the victim (Super in this case) must react with the necessary (reasonable) force to protect his own safety. If that was deemed to be a hoof in the heat of the moment then that was what was required, the dog wasn't going to ease off and say..."I'll let you check the rules before I resume my attack" is it??

A Staffy is NOT a poor defenceless wee dog, its a potential killing machine, good luck to anyone trying to prize a pair of those jaws open once they lock on. You've either got to smack it as hard as you can in the nads or punch it between the eyes, a gentle "please leave me alone Rover" just won't cut it.

I vicious dog attack csman be horrendous. But, nothing realist has said makes me think he was on the end of a vicious attack. He hasn't said the dog clamped on around his balls with the dog swinging between his legs.  It sounds like a dog jumped up at him, and his reflexes were pretty slow, and he got nipped.  Sounds to me, like he made a big fuss over very little. Now I feel for super dog kicker, it probably wasn't nice though.

If you get bit in the balls you react first and check the damage later. I don't know why you are trying so hard to condemn me for this. If a dog bit your son, daughter, your own dog or something like that you'd probably kick it to death, but because it's me and you're a contrarian you can't be seen to support the action.
If my actions have desuaded that chav dog from approaching and biting anyone else then surely that's a good thing, or would you rather a 3 year old was bitten in the face?

You keep saying it, but is a dog a chav?
You keep saying I would kick a dog, to death even, yet I really don't think I would. We are not all animal abusers you know.

[super_realist]

You don't know how you'd react. So until it happens to you, maybe try not to second guess it. Every circumstance is different.
I didn't think I would kick a dog as hard as I could until it happened to me either. Wait and see eh?

[beninho]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position.  If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.

I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. People can spout what they want, but then run the risk of it impacting them later on. If Laurence Fox wants to spout rubbish, then he gas to realise it may harm his career, he can still spout it though.

Say, what you want but live with the consequences.

[JAS]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position.  If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.

I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

I was jousting for the sake of it...which you probably know :-p The Labour front bench will almost certainly be more together with her not around to be fair. Not saying she wouldn't have been good at her job but she was a kind of straggly weed to the Corbyn era and is probably better out than in.

[Pal Joey]

Yeah, a firm steel-capped boot planted squarely on its muscular moon hole... then hear its yelp pierce the sky.

[beninho]

You don't know how you'd react. So until it happens to you, maybe try not to second guess it. Every circumstance is different.
I didn't think I would kick a dog as hard as I could until it happened to me either. Wait and see eh?

Think most of us, have enough life experiences to understand how we would tend to deal with things. You only didn't think you could kick a dog as hard as you did, so you thought you could kick a dog. I don't tbink I would kick a dog in tge circumstances you have laid out.

Now a violent and savage attack, would be different im sure.

But, i don't think I'd brag about it.

[super_realist]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position.  If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.



I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

I was jousting for the sake of it...which you probably know :-p  The Labour front bench will almost certainly be more together with her not around to be fair. Not saying she wouldn't have been good at her job but she was a kind of straggly weed to the Corbyn era and is probably better out than in.

Will make it easier for them to be centre ground, which is essential. Being ultra left is political suicide as Corbyn showed.

[super_realist]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position.  If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.

I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. People can spout what they want, but then run the risk of it impacting them later on. If Laurence Fox wants to spout rubbish, then he gas to realise it may harm his career, he can still spout it though.

Say, what you want but live with the consequences.

Words have consequences unless the hard left agrees with it? Maxine Peake still in work I see.

Do you think authors should be kicked out of their publishing houses for liking a tweet by JK Rowling, who didn't actually say anything wrong in the first place?

[beninho]

Not at all. Theres a lot more to RLB than you are making out.
First of all the Peake post contained criticism of Labour and Starmer and secondly RLB refused to take down the tweet, apologise for it or acknowledge it wasn't appropriate for someone in her position.  If I criticised my boss and company online I'd expect a reprimand.

I don't actually want anyone sacked for simply having and expressing an opinion, as that is contrary to free speech, and it's the far left who want to take free speech away.
Not employing someone like Lawrence Fox for simply having an opinion is completely separate.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. People can spout what they want, but then run the risk of it impacting them later on. If Laurence Fox wants to spout rubbish, then he gas to realise it may harm his career, he can still spout it though.

Say, what you want but live with the consequences.

Words have consequences unless the hard left agrees with it? Maxine Peake still in work I see.

Do you think authors should be kicked out of their publishing houses for liking a tweet by JK Rowling, who didn't actually say anything wrong in the first place?

Businesses do what they think are best for their business.

[super_realist]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

[beninho]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

Depends on your market, doesn't it. Does that need explaining?

[super_realist]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

Depends on your market, doesn't it. Does that need explaining?  

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think the illiberal, intolerant left should be telling us what views we are allowed to hold and express?

The publishing House of the author who got sacked was not a publishing house pandering to the left, so how is it related to their market? More like downright intimidation.

[beninho]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

[beninho]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

Depends on your market, doesn't it. Does that need explaining?  

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think the illiberal, intolerant left should be telling us what views we are allowed to hold and express?

Personally, I've not seen anyone tell me what views to hold.

[super_realist]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

I'm sure there are, so are we in agreement that the Twitteratti, whatever side they are on should not be trying to impose their views on businesses and who they employ?

[beninho]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

I'm sure there are, so are we in agreement that the Twitteratti, whatever side they are on should not be trying to impose their views on businesses and who they employ?

It doesn't really bother me either way. But, you cant argue that people can use free speech, and then complain that others use free speech in response. Thats just life.

[super_realist]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

I'm sure there are, so are we in agreement that the Twitteratti, whatever side they are on should not be trying to impose their views on businesses and who they employ?

It doesn't really bother me either way. But, you cant argue that people can use free speech, and then complain that others use free speech in response. Thats just life.

You should be able to say something without a campaign to have you sacked for it and bullying companies to get people sacked. Why are people like Owen Jones so thin skinned that he can't tolerate opinions unless they agree with him?
The response to someone saying something you don't like is to explain why you disagree, or to show their views to be wrong, not campaign for them to be sacked.

[beninho]

Just because someone wants you sacked, doesn't mean they have to be sacked.

You cant say people can say what they want, but people shouldn't say what they want back. Its illogical.

[super_realist]

Why would anyone want anyone sacked simply because of what they said (provided it is a legal thing to say)
That's the question.

Saying that asking someone to be sacked is a reasonable use of free speech is not commensurate to simply liking a tweet.
Why would anyone respond to something like liking a tweet by JK Rowling with such disproportionate action? Ridiculous.

[JAS]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

Aye, in their millions as well, and not for anything that they'd said, just that they were inconveniently in the way of some of the elite on their way to earning billions. Remember it was someone on the RIGHT who said and I quote "Unemployment is a price worth paying"  Really shows you where the moral compass of the right exists

[JAS]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

Aye, in their millions as well, and not for anything that they'd said, just that they were inconveniently in the way of some of the elite on their way to earning billions. Remember it was someone on the RIGHT who said and I quote "Unemployment is a price worth paying"  Really shows you where the moral compass of the right exists

...and Lamont never got sacked for saying it either, what a sorry shower they were. Remember black Wednesday.... "we need to save the pound (because we've royally f**ked up) so I'm making the BoE base Rate 15%" (so all you mortgage holding plebs can pay for the continued ability of my class to continue to make billions). Obviously he never said what's in the brackets...but that's what he meant.

[super_realist]

Interest rates have been higher under Labour in the past.

[beninho]

Why would anyone want anyone sacked simply because of what they said (provided it is a legal thing to say)
That's the question.

Saying that asking someone to be sacked is a reasonable use of free speech is  not  commensurate to simply liking a tweet.
Why would anyone respond to something like liking a tweet by JK Rowling with such disproportionate action? Ridiculous.

Because, and this may be hard to understand. People have different opinions. I know, shocker hey. What you think is ridiculous, someone else doesn't. And the tother way round.

[super_realist]

Why would anyone want anyone sacked simply because of what they said (provided it is a legal thing to say)
That's the question.

Saying that asking someone to be sacked is a reasonable use of free speech is  not  commensurate to simply liking a tweet.
Why would anyone respond to something like liking a tweet by JK Rowling with such disproportionate action? Ridiculous.

Because, and this may be hard to understand. People have different opinions. I know, shocker hey. What you think is ridiculous, someone else doesn't. And the tother way round.

What sort of manman would think the commensurate response to someone holding an opinion is worth barracking their employer to sack them?
It might be their free speech to do that, but it's a disgusting route to take.

You've said a lot of what I don't like, but I don't go looking for your employer to get you punted do I? What is wrong with these type of people and when did they become so I tolerant and when did employers allow themselves to be so intimidated by this mob?

[beninho]

I guess it just depends on what the views were. But, generally, while I don't get why people shoukd get riled about someone defacing a statue and want them sacked, im not fussed.

Sometimes if people are stupid enough to post racist stuff on social media then its on them if it goes back to the employer.

[super_realist]

I guess it just depends on what the views were. But, generally, while I don't get why people shoukd get riled about someone defacing a statue and want them sacked, im not fussed.

Sometimes if people are stupid enough to post racist stuff on social media then its on them if it goes back to the employer.

Much of what is being posted is nothing like as bad as racism.
JK Rowling simply said that people who menstruate are women.  Hard to disagree with that. Never seen a man menstruate, have you? For some reason she's been branded as a "transphobe" for some reason.
The odd thing is that the publisher sacked an author for agreeing with her, but not Rowling herself. Surely the Publisher should just have stuck the middle finger up to those idiots demanding a sacking as they constitute such a small number anyway

[JAS]

Interest rates have been higher under Labour in the past.

That's hardly a justification for a "shaft the masses" economic policy is it?

Looking back through BoE data to the mid 70's looks like the highest peak was early in the Thatcher era at 17% Wilson and Callaghan and Major all managed temporary peaks around 14-15%. Thing was though, in the 70's home ownership wasn't a big thing, there was nowhere near the debt enslavement encouraged by Thatcher and the right to buy. Don't get me wrong, the mass roll out of the right to buy was a great thing, but with it came a huge responsibility on government to keep it affordable and that was what the Tories failed on.

Who's even to say that higher interest rates are even a 100% bad thing. The Blair govt managed to stabilise rates at around 5% for a long time. The people then failed themselves by taking on too much debt in the 00's (sustained low stable interest rates probably helped), utterly crazy that they were allowed to do it. Banks saw gullible people and filled their boots knowing that if it all went belly up they'd get bailed out. Labour stood by and did eff all until it was too late.

[super_realist]

Interest rates have been higher under Labour in the past.

That's hardly a justification for a "shaft the masses" economic policy is it?

Looking back through BoE data to the mid 70's looks like the highest peak was early in the Thatcher era at 17% Wilson and Callaghan and Major all managed temporary peaks around 14-15%. Thing was though, in the 70's home ownership wasn't a big thing, there was nowhere near the debt enslavement encouraged by Thatcher and the right to buy. Don't get me wrong, the mass roll out of the right to buy was a great thing, but with it came a huge responsibility on government to keep it affordable and that was what the Tories failed on.

Who's even to say that higher interest rates are even a 100% bad thing. The Blair govt managed to stabilise rates at around 5% for a long time. The people then failed themselves by taking on too much debt in the 00's (sustained low stable interest rates probably helped), utterly crazy that they were allowed to do it. Banks saw gullible people and filled their boots knowing that if it all went belly up they'd get bailed out. Labour stood by and did eff all until it was too late.

Why even bring something up from 30 years ago?

[beninho]

Think the whole trans issue is a lot more nuanced then that. But, i generally don't see an issue with what JK has said on it. But, i have not read it all, and probably not as au fait with trans issue as you.

[super_realist]

Think the whole trans issue is a lot more nuanced then that. But, i generally don't see an issue with what JK has said on it. But, i have not read it all, and probably not as au fait with trans issue as you.

What I have heard more of is more trans people stating that there was nothing wrong with what she said, and rather it was virtue signalling Owen Jones types piling in because they thought it was the correct thing to do.

[beninho]

OK, well you have more knowledge on trans then me then.

[westisbest]

Championship Ben. Congrats.

Great achievement for Wycombe

(Hopefully we won’t be playing you next season).

[beninho]

Unbelievable Unbelievable. Fu$King hell. Best football experience of my life. Wow. I'm still a bit dumbstruck

[pedro]

Super- was there any lasting damage to your scrotal sac?

Thought he had retired it anyway..

[pedro]

Under pressure from the illiberal, intolerant left.

So do you think the left should be calling to sack people on the basis of views they hold? Surely even you don't believe that is a good thing.

Who is the left?

Depends on the views.

But, then you see people on the right, calling people to be sacked, for things. So, swings and roundabouts.

Aye, in their millions as well, and not for anything that they'd said, just that they were inconveniently in the way of some of the elite on their way to earning billions. Remember it was someone on the RIGHT who said and I quote "Unemployment is a price worth paying"  Really shows you where the moral compass of the right exists

OK, so when it comes to sending out people in unemployment for views they hold, you are in line with the right?? Or you’re just a good ole relativist?

[westisbest]

Unbelievable Unbelievable. Fu$King hell. Best football experience of my life. Wow. I'm still a bit dumbstruck

Shame no fans there to celebrate with the team.

[JAS]

Interest rates have been higher under Labour in the past.

That's hardly a justification for a "shaft the masses" economic policy is it?

Looking back through BoE data to the mid 70's looks like the highest peak was early in the Thatcher era at 17% Wilson and Callaghan and Major all managed temporary peaks around 14-15%. Thing was though, in the 70's home ownership wasn't a big thing, there was nowhere near the debt enslavement encouraged by Thatcher and the right to buy. Don't get me wrong, the mass roll out of the right to buy was a great thing, but with it came a huge responsibility on government to keep it affordable and that was what the Tories failed on.

Who's even to say that higher interest rates are even a 100% bad thing. The Blair govt managed to stabilise rates at around 5% for a long time. The people then failed themselves by taking on too much debt in the 00's (sustained low stable interest rates probably helped), utterly crazy that they were allowed to do it. Banks saw gullible people and filled their boots knowing that if it all went belly up they'd get bailed out. Labour stood by and did eff all until it was too late.

Why even bring something up from 30 years ago?

...Because historical context informs debate. You're not shy yourself in trotting out tired old misconceptions about how terrible the 70's apparently were. Not being prepared to learn the lessons from the mistakes of history leaves us liable to repeat them.

You're central point was about the illiberal left wanting people sacked for what they said (which I agree is utterly abhorrent as well - obviously within reason - you would expect to call your boss an effin C*** and keep your job). I was trying to make (and illustrate the point) that the right don't even wait for people to say anything before implementing policy that they know fine well will see people in their millions sacked. In terms of free speech its not solely an illiberal left thing either, how many people has right wing Tango Man sacked for saying the wrong thing (or more accurately the right thing but contradicting what he wants to hear).

[super_realist]

I think you missed the point I was making. I was talking specifically about what someone says (or even thinks) resulting in the fascism, double standards,  intolerance and lack of liberalism we are seeing today, which usually (in Britain) comes from the extreme left and sickeningly woke elements of our pathetic modern society.
 
I'm not really sure how what Lamont said 30 years ago is really relevant to that point or is really comparable in regards to cancel culture. Looks rather tit for tat retaliation on your part to get a dig in on the right because I made one to the left.

How did Lamont sack "millions" anyway? Talk about hyperbole and exaggeration.

This also isn't a party political thing, but surely even someone from the left like you can see how childish and moronic that extreme left branch of usually white, middle class Tabitha's and Toby's are by trying to dictate their beliefs on everyone else by labelling them racist, transphobic or whatever if you don't agree with everything they say.

[JAS]

I think you missed the point I was making. I was talking specifically about what someone says (or even thinks) resulting in the fascism, double standards,  intolerance and lack of liberalism we are seeing today, which usually (in Britain) comes from the extreme left and sickeningly woke elements of our pathetic modern society.
 
I'm not really sure how what Lamont said 30 years ago is really relevant to that point or is really comparable in regards to cancel culture. Looks rather tit for tat retaliation on your part to get a dig in on the right because I made one to the left.

How did Lamont sack "millions" anyway? Talk about hyperbole and exaggeration.

This also isn't a party political thing, but surely even someone from the left like you can see how childish and moronic that extreme left branch of usually white, middle class Tabitha's and Toby's  are by trying to dictate their beliefs on everyone else by labelling them racist, transphobic or whatever if you don't agree with everything they say.

Do you actually have trouble reading whole posts?

(which I agree is utterly abhorrent as well


With Lamont he himself didn't sack millions, that's not what I said either, he was quoted as saying "unemployment is a price worth paying" That is directly in line with monetarist right wing dogma where the pursuit of low inflation is paramount, even if it means a huge pool of unemployed labour. My main point there is that people losing their jobs is an awful thing whether its because of making a politically incorrect comment or being the victim of ideological government policy (and yes that also applies on both left and right ideologies)

In terms of free speech it was YOU that chose to add "illiberal left" My point is that the illiberal left don't have a monopoly on it, the issue of free speech and the continued ability to exercise it is much bigger than trying to cheapen it by saying the intolerance is coming from any one particular side.

[super_realist]

You inferred that the Government of that time put millions on the dole by virtue of expressing a statement on the cost of unemployment being worth keeping inflation low. That wasn't true at all.
We get that you hate the Tories, but keep your ire for a topic that is actually relevant to what is being discussed and every time someone has a go at what the left is doing isn't justification for brining up something from 30 years ago from the right as we can all do that.

My point was that in regards to cancel culture in Britain it does appear to be more common coming from the fascist element of the left. That's not to say the right aren't also involved, but the intolerant left and the illiberal elite of the left media are far more vocal about it.
Can you imagine for example of a footballer had not taken the knee in any of those matches? They would be sacked immediately following demands from the fascist left and accusations of racism would fly when in reality it could just be that they didn't want to be involved in politics or that they didn't want taking the knee to be confused with support for a horrible Marxist political movement like BLM.

[beninho]

Super dog abuser, do you think that everyone, who believes that BLM is a Marxist?

[superflyweight]

He's probably convinced himself that the fictional dog that supposedly bit him was a Marxist.

[Pal Joey]

It must have leapt up at an interesting Engel to nip the gonads.

[super_realist]

Super dog abuser, do you think that everyone, who believes that BLM is a Marxist?  

You're missing the point, probably deliberately.

I don't think there's anyone who doesn't think black lives matter, however that doesn't mean you support the BLM group. Please notice the difference in the two things denoted by capitals.

I've heard a lot of black people distance themselves from BLM ( the group) and even Labour and the BBC have distanced themselves from that organisation.

[beninho]

How do you differentiate who think BLM and who are involved in the BLM group? Taking a knee doesn't mean you are a Marxist it does mean you support BLM.

[Sponsored content]