Liddle blog in historic censure move

[MX7]

Liddle blog in historic censure move

"Former Radio 4 Today editor Rod Liddle has become the first journalist to have an online blog censured by the press watchdog after he made comments about crime in London."


Regardless of how (in)accurate his statement was, I find it worrying that he's not allowed to voice his opinion. I understand that Liddle is a Marmite character, but I'm sure that even his most loyal fans wouldn't deny that he can be a bit of a pillock on occasions.

If the statement was wholly inaccurate, all he is doing is putting his own journalistic credibility in jeopardy. That's his choice, and I'm sure there will be people who will take great pleasure in undermining him.

Either way, I see blogs as something to stimulate debate, and in no way view them as factual articles. I hope this doesn't set a trend.

[zcacogp]

Spokesman for PCC said:

"While it had provided some evidence to back up Mr Liddle's position, it had not been able to demonstrate that the 'overwhelming majority' of crime in all the stated categories had been carried out by members of the African-Caribbean community."

So it sounds like the statement has backing in truth, with evidence produced to prove this, and the objectionable bit is the 'Overwhelming Majority'. Which is a subjective phrase anyway ...

Smells to me like the PC police didn't like it and had it pulled. Once again, truth is the first casualty.


Oli.

[JacksHereR]

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers and peedos are white.


eta:
someone on the radio made a good point for comparison, serial killers and peedos are white.

Edited by JacksHereR on Tuesday 30th March 15:19

[Saddle bum]

Free speech, dangerous stuff that. What do you want, democracy?

[MX7]

JacksHereR said:

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers and peedos are white.

What?

[perdu]

obviously

that must be on the job description

(non whites need not apply)





The whole planet is full of orrible people not just the white caucasian bit

blimey

Edited by perdu on Tuesday 30th March 15:07

[neilr]

If ive missed some sarcasm then I apologise in advance, if not....

I think JacksHereR was alluding to the point that the vast majority of peados and serial killers do seem to be caucasian.

Interestingly, that doesn't make me hop up and down screaming like a crazy man that the comment is racist and JackHereR should be paraded through the streets, beaten and strung up for making such a suggestion. I not worried about the comment in anyway, as I suspect 99% of the rest of you aren't. However if he had suggested something else, such as most muggings in london are commited by young black males (assuming that was backed up by stats of course) then people get upset. (i have no idea what the stats for muggings in london are with regards to ethnicity.

People are morons simple as, and most (including ethic minoriities) don't seem to understand the definition of racism. I for one am sick of it.

Sometimes I think nuclear armageddon can't come soon enough.

[neilr]

I forgot to add - Considering the Trotsky-ite criminal scum that are in charge of the country at the moment, im suprised that anyone is allowed to report anything except reprinting government approved versions of the news.

As was said earlier, the truth is the first casualty. (why couldn't it have been the entire cabinet in a mass suicide?)

[Andy Zarse]

JacksHereR said:

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers... are white.


eta:
someone on the radio made a good point for comparison, serial killers and peedos are white.

Edited by JacksHereR on Tuesday 30th March 15:19

Except for the Washington Sniper and another 35 African American serial killers currently on death row in the US.

I'd give you the UK stats, but I can't find them and we're probably not allowed to know.

[Oakey]

Andy Zarse said:

JacksHereR said:

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers... are white.


eta:
someone on the radio made a good point for comparison, serial killers and peedos are white.

Edited by JacksHereR on Tuesday 30th March 15:19

Except for the Washington Sniper and another 35 African American serial killers currently on death row in the US.

I'd give you the UK stats, but I can't find them and we're probably not allowed to know.

Compared to how many white serial killers?

ETA: All I've found so far is this entry on Wiki (which isn't definitive)

Serial killers in the United States tend to share the following general characteristics:[8][9]

1.The majority are single, white males

Edited by Oakey on Tuesday 30th March 15:35

[MX7]

JacksHereR said:

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers and peedos are white.


eta:
someone on the radio made a good point for comparison, serial killers and peedos are white.

Edited by JacksHereR on Tuesday 30th March 15:19

I thought the interesting aspect of the story was that blogs can now be censured. You seem to have viewed it as an issue where racism needs to be confronted by using some sort of incomprehensible diversion tactic. I really don't see any relevance.

[zcacogp]

MX7 said:

I thought the interesting aspect of the story was that blogs can now be censured.

Indeed. Blogs, which are simply people putting opinions of their own on the the internet, are no longer 'free'.

Opinions which are, it would appear, based in fact as well.

'You're free to express any opinion you like, as long as it's politically correct. And if the facts back up a politically incorrect one, you can't express it.'


Oli.

[HiRich]

MX7 said:

Regardless of how (in)accurate his statement was, I find it worrying that he's not allowed to voice his opinion.

I'm struggling to see what all the fuss is about:

• The blog was on the Spectator's site. Thus it was press media, and subject to the PCC's control.
• As it happens I think all blogs should operate within the general rules - in this case UK rules & laws. That includes independent blogs like Guido Fawkes.
• I would rather someone have control, than no one. All that's happened is that the PCC have grabbed that control.
• It wasn't opinion, it was presented as a statement of fact. It was incorrect. My understanding (which may well be from similarly incorrect sources) is that young blacks are massively over-represented in knife crime (and some other violent crimes) in London, compared to population. But I doubt the "overwhelming majority" claim. He could have phrased it differently, or made it more like opinion ready to be corrected by readers. But he didn't, so he was factually wrong.

Whilst some complanants may have been "right ons" preventing talk of a sensitive subject, that doesn't excuse the fact that Liddle was wrong. The opinion argument was wrong, and leads you down a slippery slope anyway - would you be happy if I were to start opining that s smell funny? We've already agreed that sort of thing is wrong (and just in case you haven't realised, I used "" to be inflammatory, like Liddle was). And I don't see that discussion of a serious issue of race is being prevented by Liddle and/or the Spectator being bked.
Equally, I don't see Liddle as being racist, just incorrect in his facts and/or choice of language. A simple "there's an issue to be discussed here, but I got my info wrong and apologise for that" would suffice, and he seems to have done that - case closed. I may think he's a , but I would criticise or support others in the same situation.

So no, I don't see what the big issue is.

[MX7]

HiRich said:

• The blog was on the Spectator's site. Thus it was press media, and subject to the PCC's control.

I don't believe that an editorial publication like The Spectator should have to conform to the same regulations as something like the broadsheets. It's catering to a different market, and is clearly very opinionated.

HiRich said:

* As it happens I think all blogs should operate within the general rules - in this case UK rules & laws. That includes independent blogs like Guido Fawkes.

I think that people should be permitted to print what they like, even if it means making fools of themselves. Reputation is something that takes a long time to establish, and if someone wants to destroy theirs, leave them to it.

HiRich said:

* I would rather someone have control, than no one. All that's happened is that the PCC have grabbed that control.

There is already some control. All blogs have to comply to the laws of the land, so something like race hate blogs would be closed. This is a situation where he may have used inaccurate facts, and he is being censored for it. If it had any racist intent, he should be prosecuted. If all he was doing was talking out his backs side, that's his choice, but it wouldn't take long until he becomes known as a charlatan.

HiRich said:

* It wasn't opinion, it was presented as a statement of fact. It was incorrect. My understanding (which may well be from similarly incorrect sources) is that young blacks are massively over-represented in knife crime (and some other violent crimes) in London, compared to population. But I doubt the "overwhelming majority" claim. He could have phrased it differently, or made it more like opinion ready to be corrected by readers. But he didn't, so he was factually wrong.

Are we really gong to have government departments checking that blogs are factually correct? Ok, he is a journalist, but this was his blog, not even a Spectator article.

HiRich said:

Whilst some complanants may have been "right ons" preventing talk of a sensitive subject, that doesn't excuse the fact that Liddle was wrong. The opinion argument was wrong, and leads you down a slippery slope anyway - would you be happy if I were to start opining that s smell funny?

As far as I'm concerned, you can say what you like. It's your opinion.

HiRich said:

Equally, I don't see Liddle as being racist, just incorrect in his facts and/or choice of language. A simple "there's an issue to be discussed here, but I got my info wrong and apologise for that" would suffice, and he seems to have done that - case closed.

I don't think it is.

"Tomorrow, I’ll blog the first of a couple of pieces in response to the Press Complaints Commission’s bizarre adjudication (and indeed its self-important breast-beating). All those figures in full. Right now I’m thinking of taking the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission for a decision which they were unable to support with hard facts and seemed motivated more by a wish to genuflect before the PC liberals who eviscerated the organization over its inept handling of the Jan Moir case. But, as I say, more of that tomorrow."

[The Black Flash]

HiRich said:

• I would rather someone have control, than no one. All that's happened is that the PCC have grabbed that control.

I would rather no-one had it, than just anyone who took it, thanks all the same.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

The Black Flash said:

HiRich said:

• I would rather someone have control, than no one. All that's happened is that the PCC have grabbed that control.

I would rather no-one had it, than just anyone who took it, thanks all the same.

I'd rather I had control over my own life rather than someone else.

[HiRich]

MX7 said:

I don't believe that an editorial publication like The Spectator should have to conform to the same regulations as something like the broadsheets. It's catering to a different market, and is clearly very opinionated.

I apppreciate that we are not going to agree on this, but please recognise the enormous power blogs can have - not least because unsubstantiated rumour can spread rapidly.
We nearly had the "David Cameron's child was disabled becasue he had the clap" event (ironically for my case, blown by another blog). What if that had been timed for the election - by the time the story was disproved we would be looking at another five years of Tricky Dicky Brown.

Unlimited press freedom (given the inherent bias in the system for them in the UK in so many areas - only rich people get to see Eady) has real risks. Censorship also carries immense risks, but at least it can be limited and attenuated. Bloggers are by definition publishers and just about fall within the PCC remit - the alternative, either way, is a hell of a lot scarier for one or other party.

[tank slapper]

MX7 said:

HiRich said:

* As it happens I think all blogs should operate within the general rules - in this case UK rules & laws. That includes independent blogs like Guido Fawkes.

I think that people should be permitted to print what they like, even if it means making fools of themselves. Reputation is something that takes a long time to establish, and if someone wants to destroy theirs, leave them to it.

As you've mentioned it, Guido Fawkes blog is not based in the UK, even though he comments on UK politics. He is Irish, and has spread his hosting and other things to do with the running of the site around various countries precisely because it makes it harder to control what he says.

[Somewhatfoolish]

JacksHereR said:

someone on the radio made a good point, serial killers and peedos are white.

Alf Garnett could counter that was cause the darkies are too thick to get away with the former and with the latter it's all kid gloves.

But that's what Alf Garnett would say. Not me.

[The Black Flash]

HiRich said:

MX7 said:

I don't believe that an editorial publication like The Spectator should have to conform to the same regulations as something like the broadsheets. It's catering to a different market, and is clearly very opinionated.

I apppreciate that we are not going to agree on this, but please recognise the enormous power blogs can have - not least because unsubstantiated rumour can spread rapidly.
We nearly had the "David Cameron's child was disabled becasue he had the clap" event (ironically for my case, blown by another blog). What if that had been timed for the election - by the time the story was disproved we would be looking at another five years of Tricky Dicky Brown.

Unlimited press freedom (given the inherent bias in the system for them in the UK in so many areas - only rich people get to see Eady) has real risks. Censorship also carries immense risks, but at least it can be limited and attenuated. Bloggers are by definition publishers and just about fall within the PCC remit - the alternative, either way, is a hell of a lot scarier for one or other party.

I don't think blogs are the same as the press however. There are a lot more of them, for one thing, and anyone can have one. So where an untruth gets circulated, you'll find as many blogs countering it as spreading it, in almost real-time. It's not the same as a paper printing a defamatory article, which the subject then complains about and a decision is reached in the court months later.
Blogs are (almost all) people, whereas papers are companies. Quite different, I think. I would much rather deal with the problems caused by no censorship, than those it causes.