If You Get The Very Basics Wrong, Why Should We Listen Further?

Carole Cadwalladr on the riots:

"The 1996 Dunblane massacre and the outcry that followed are held up in the US as a textbook example of how an act of terror mobilised a country to demand effective gun regulation.The atrocity, in which 16 children and their teacher were killed, provoked a wave of national revulsion that, within weeks, led to 750,000 people signing a petition demanding a change to the law. Within a year and a half, new legislation had outlawed the ownership of handguns."

But Carole, we still have gun crime. So really, how effective was it? It stopped some innocent people enjoying a legal hobby, and the thugs and criminals went right on doing what they do...

Almost 30 years on, the horrific violence visited on a dance class in Southport has sparked a very different reaction. A reaction that shocked many in Britain this week but which experts in domestic extremism – and especially those who look at the intersection of violence and technology – say is all too depressingly familiar. And in this, our new age of algorithmic outrage, depressingly inevitable. “We’ve always had radicalisation, but in the past, leaders would be the bridge and bring people together,” said Maria Ressa, the Filipino journalist and trenchant tech critic who won the 2021 Nobel peace prize. “That’s impossible to do now, because what used to radicalise extremists and terrorists is now radicalising the public. Because the information ecosystem is designed that way.”

Ah, so now we must ban the Internet? I think that's going to prove a tougher opponent than the target shooting community... 

The question is what Keir Starmer will do.

The wrong thing, of course! Since this whole thing started, he's unerringly done that every single step of the way. 

Ebner points to the fact that this is no longer about dark corners of the internet: politicians are among those who have been radicalised. “They now say things that they would not have said previously and use dog whistles to the far right, flirting with conspiracy myths that used to belong to fringe far-right movements.”

And now everyone can see that they actually had a point after all and that the conspiracy is out in the open. No wonder people like you, Carole, are shitting themselves at no longer being able to control the narrative... 

Stop 'Warning' And Start Fining!

Banks are to be warned by ministers that they must protect free speech as increasing numbers of customers are having their accounts closed for holding allegedly controversial views.

The Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is reportedly 'deeply concerned' that lenders are blacklisting customers they are deemed to hold contrary political beliefs and social values.

And is he prepared to actually do anything? Well, he's prepared to consider it, at least...

A Treasury source told the Daily Telegraph: 'It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks.'

What action? Hold another meeting? Send a stong letter of condemnation?  Admit that this has been brewing under your noses for a long time? 

What's that, Reader? You're surprised? You thought it was new? Oh no. It's EU legislation that hasn't been junked when we junked the EU.

The term defines anyone with a 'prominent public function' and originates in a 1987 initiative against corruption and money laundering launched by the G7 group of leading economies. This was designed to make banks and other financial institutions subject any PEP to intense scrutiny when setting up accounts — on the grounds that by reason of their public position they presented a much higher risk for potential involvement in corruption and money laundering than the man or woman in the street.

And, as we all know, give some people power and they will wield it in ways you never thought possible.  

The PEP system came into force in this country under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which referred to people with a prominent public position 'other than [in] the United Kingdom'. In other words, identifying powerful people from various highly corrupt nations, where political power and bribery went together like eggs and bacon. But the financial institutions here immediately applied it to members of our own Parliament — even though this did not become mandatory until the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. And not just them, but their immediate family — which, typically, include the PEP's 'parents, siblings, spouse, children, in-laws, grandparents and grandchildren'.

And all our legislative government was asleep at the switch while they did it. Or...were they? 

Is it possible they knew exactly what was going on? And were content because they never thought it'd affect them?

It's Our Money She's Won..!

The Met Police has paid out £10,000 in damages to a Christian evangelist preacher for wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

Hatun Tash was twice arrested at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park after reporting to officers that she was being harassed and threatened by Islamic demonstrators.

A good win for freedom of speech? Yes, undoubtedly. But the police aren't paying it, are they? 

And until they are, personally, there's no reason for them to ever stop, is there?

Fighting Talk!

Dr Bryn Harris, the FSU's Chief Legal Counsel, said: 'This is a tremendous victory for Simon and for free speech. The lesson is clear: if you’re a member of the FSU, make sure your employer knows it. And if you’re an employer – don’t bully our members, or we’ll come for you.'

Free Speech Union General Secretary Toby Young said: 'I'm delighted we were able to help Simon win a landmark victory for free speech.

'I hope this sends a message to other employers: you cannot dismiss staff for gross misconduct for mocking woke diversity training. Workers have rights, including the right to free speech.'

Well, well, well...isn't it nice to see a good news story for once? 

A West Midlands Trains spokesperson said: 'We respect the decision of the Tribunal. West Midlands Trains is an inclusive employer and there is no place for discriminatory behaviour within the rail industry.'

Then why did you try it, and then fail? Hard?