Conditional Free Speech In The UK
There would appear to be a fresh escalation of the controversy regarding the state of free speech in the UK. However, for those who are old enough, or like to keep abreast of such matters, it is the case that the free speech ship actually sailed decades ago. Coincidentally, the term politically correct started in its current form around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Until then of course, we were in a Cold War, and had to show the Soviets how free and happy we were (compared to them) and that living in the West did not have nasty concepts such as Stasi and a Police state. However, once the Cold War was “won”, we could actually meet the Eastern Bloc half way: they would take our capitalism, and we would take their Totalitarianism. Well kind of.
Before 30 years ago, one did not have to be careful about one said, and few would, or need to. It was offensive, there were perhaps the odd punch up or two, and it made some people cry and get upset. Now we have both an Orwellian monitoring system, where the individual is expected to know (and have lawyer grade knowledge of) what will cause offence, not only now, but decades ahead. Indeed, if Ricky Gervais has pointed this out, it must be true.
This week when asked if he was in favour of free speech, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was strongly in favour of it, as long as it was not an incitement to violence.” But of course, free speech by definition unconditional, and total. Something along the lines of one being either pregnant or not. So he has just admitted weare not free, over and above the way that almost everything he says has the opposite meaning.
For instance, if someone tweets that the whole of the UK should jump in the nearest lake, and someone does it and drowns, is that murder? Or if someone suggests that everyone in the country sends them £1m, is that fraud? To what extent is someone liable for the independent actions of others? We clearly do not have free speech in this country, and this is partly (and fairly) because a significant number of people in society do not want it. It is also because policing free speech is an easy win for the police and lawyers. Much easier than trying to find who stole your bike, or who stabbed a teenager.
The result of this is that an equally significant number of people now have their quality of life diminished by not being able to say, or write, or even think what they wish to for fear of causing offence. Even worse, incitement of the “hate the rich / privileged” variety on the left of politics is absolutely fine. But right of centre view and comments directed at groups or views of the left risks one being on the wrong side of the Court of Appeal. In fact, this is the situation now, but in a few years could flip the other way and right wing views gain the ascendency. The common factor is that we all remain under the cosh if we are unable to freely discuss and criticise the issues of the day.
Chagos: Paying To Sell
In the 1980s there was the Right To Buy, when council tenants were able to buy the homes they lived in and if they wanted sell them for a tidy profit. This rather ripped off the taxpayer who had paid to build these dwellings in the first place, but hey, we created a property owning democracy. It was effectively handing members of the public a lottery win. Fast forward forty years, and apart from the lawyers who drafted the Chagos deal, it would appear that the taxpayer is taking a hit again. On this occasion via a “deal” that was not mentioned at the time of the General Election, and where this government has invented a third form of transaction. We are all familiar with paying to buy something, receiving money when we sell something. But with Chagos, the UK government has combined the two existing concepts: we are paying to sell. This would appear to be a world first. One is torn between naming it “to Keir” or “doing a Chagos.” The nearest to this £30bn “deal” that no one wanted up to know is perhaps when one pays the local council to get rid of an old mattress. But even here, one might pay a token amount, and that is it. Not pay every month for the next 100 years. That said, if Chagos will cost £30bn, then surely Gibraltar should see Spain receive £100bn, and given all the oil around the Falklands we should pay £200bn to give that back to Argentina. It is just as well this government was not in power when Hong Kong was given back to China in 1997. Presumably, the $1trln territory would have been “sold” at a cost of hundreds of billions, as the socialist agenda remains to improverish and diminish this country wherever possible. This is to bring everyone here down to the same level, and become loyal Labour supporters, dependent on the state.
Gary Lineker
We have it again. Every few months the BBC does what it is supposed to do, entertaining the nation. It does this not only via its programming for £174.50 a year – a TV poll tax, but also via the people that present the programmes, arguably, giving us extra value.
In this instance, it has been football pundit Gary Lineker doing the honours, and this time there is thankfully no sex involved at all. But while we mull on how many chances the ex-footballer had been given before falling on his sword, should we not question why he has finally been sent off?
There are two main issues here. The first is that everyone, even football pundits are entitled to their own opinion, especially if it is wrong, or we disagree with it. The second is that given how complex geopolitics is, one would give no more credibility to his views (he was only a footballer) on Israel / Palestine, than give him a Nobel Prize for Nuclear Physics. After all, would anyone listen to Mary Berry’s views on mining gold, or Adele’s on flyfishing, or Keir Starmer’s views on rock music. Not really, because it is not really their things. Although, in Sir Keir’s case, it is tough to know what his thing is.
It would appear that the real reason for Lineker’s departure, and no doubt chunky payoff would be that the BBC is concerned it would harm its viewership, and diminish it license fee income yet further. If the real reason he is going is because most at the BBC agree with him, but it is not a good look, our Gary perhaps should have kept his seven figure salary job. Resigning because you reposted something you are clueless about seems unnecessary.
