Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

Meanwhile, Jez has clearly stated from his own gob that seats were free and he chose to sit on the floor.

When Jez is defended by the Jez-defenders calling Jez a liar, then things aren't just really really really bad. They're off the scale nutty, fruitcakeland.

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and i'm aware that only the most stupid and biased have been taken in by a bigger faked video than anything Branson did.

that's Branson's video, isn't it????

The CCTV train footage part, I mean.

Edited December 20, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

that's Branson's video, isn't it????

it's footage supplied by the train, but put into your lovely vid where it's lied about.

When there's scenery going past the windows, it's not "just boarded the train" as your scummy lying vid claims it is.

Jez was sat on the floor before the train left the station.

Edited December 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's footage supplied by the train, but put into your lovely vid where it's lied about.

When there's scenery going past the windows, it's not "just boarded the train" as your scummy lying vid claims it is.

Jez was sat on the floor before the train left the station.

Don't get what any of that has to do with anything.

here's another take on it:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/08/did-mainstream-media-smear-jeremy-corbyn-over-traingate

Quote

 

No one comes out of Traingate looking particularly good. Corbyn's team were initially disorganised in their messaging. The Guardian acknowledges that it made errors in its reporting. And as the Double Down video highlights, much of the wider media should have been more sceptical, rather than following an anti-Corbyn narrative. The saga also didn't look great for Virgin – not just because of a crowded train, but also because Branson's intervention looked like a billionaire meddling in politics. 

 

But for Double Down to present its footage as proof of a conspiracy to smear Corbyn is a little awkward, when it has heavily spun its own story. When calling for less cosiness in the media, it would also help to mention that one of its directors was a key player in the whole affair.

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Don't get what any of that has to do with anything.

because no one disputes that Jez sat on the floor or that the train was full. :rolleyes:

The point is this: it was NOT full when Jez sat on the floor.

Why does your self-proclaimed high IQ make you unable to understand it? :lol:

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

because no one disputes that Jez sat on the floor or that the train was full.

The point is this: it was NOT full when Jez sat on the floor.

Why does your self-proclaimed high IQ make you unable to understand it?

ok. he got reseated before the train had stopped, because a family got upgraded to first class. so, nobody got on, nobody got off.

so wtf are you on about?

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but it still requires that it hits with the seriously mentally unstable to have any effect.

The chances are tiny, but if it happened it's not difficult to see where the whole country will point the finger.

So what can the hate mail gain? Nothing at all.

 

apols, I thought i was replying to feral when I wrote that.

But, much the same applies. There's been people like you (not necessarily you, tho I reckon a hunt-back would show that it was you too) running around calling the tories murderers because they don't like their policies. 

It's all the same idiot bollocks. The problem is idiots and bollocks, and not the mail.

The MPs in question have specifially cited the Mail headlines as reasons for the threats ( and most of them cite them from what has been released)

Saying idiots are idiots doesnt downplay the Mails actions, esp given the facts of the Cox case and the fact this happened before with their points

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The MPs in question have specifially cited the Mail headlines as reasons for the threats ( and most of them cite them from what has been released)

Saying idiots are idiots doesnt downplay the Mails actions, esp given the facts of the Cox case and the fact this happened before with their points

The media have created moral panics for decades. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201507/moral-panic-who-benefits-public-fear

Quote

The criminological concept known as moral panic offers valuable insights into how and why powerful social agents such as the news media and the police deliberately create public concern or fear of an individual or group. 

Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is/are claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the first place. 

The moral panic concept was developed and popularized by South African criminologist Stanley Cohen when he explained the public reaction to disturbances by youths called “mods and rockers” at seaside resorts in Brighton, England during the 1960s. Cohen’s work illustrated how those reactions influenced the formation and enforcement of social policy, law, and societal perceptions of threats posed by the youth groups (1).  

Since its inception, the moral panic concept has been applied to a wide range of social problems including but not limited to youth gangs, school violence, child abuse, Satanism, wilding, flag burning, illegal immigration and terrorism.  

Central to the moral panic concept is an argument that public concern or fear over an alleged social problem is mutually beneficial to state officials—that is, politicians and law enforcement authorities—and the news media. The relationship between state officials and the media is symbiotic in that politicians and law enforcement need communication channels to distribute their rhetoric and the media need tantalizing news content to attract a wide audience which, in turn, attracts advertisers. 

Moral panics arise when distorted mass media campaigns are used to create fear, reinforce stereotypes and exacerbate pre-existing divisions in the world, often based on race, ethnicity and social class. 

Additionally, moral panics have three distinguishing characteristics.  First, there is a focused attention on the behavior, whether real or imagined, of certain individuals or groups that are transformed into what Cohen referred to as “folk devils” by the mass media. This is accomplished when the media strip these folk devils of all favorable characteristics and apply exclusively negative ones. 

Second, there is a gap between the concern over a condition and the objective threat it poses. Typically, the objective threat is far less than popularly perceived due to how it is presented by authorities. 

Third, there is a great deal of fluctuation over time in the level of concern over a condition. The typical pattern begins with the discovery of the threat, followed by a rapid rise and then peak in public concern, which then subsequently, and often abruptly, subsides. 

Finally, public hysteria over a perceived problem often results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify the agendas of those in positions of power and authority. 

Moral panic is both a public and political response to an exaggeration or distortion of the threat posed to society by some allegedly harmful individual or group. More specifically, moral panic includes an exaggeration of certain events by enhancing the empirical criteria such as the number of individuals involved, the level and extent of violence, and the amount of damage caused. 

Of course, this is not something that happens spontaneously, but rather, is a result of the complex dynamics and interplay among several social actors. As originally explained by Cohen, at least five sets of social actors are involved in a moral panic. These include: 1) folk devils, 2) rule or law enforcers, 3) the media, 4) politicians, and 5) the public.    

First, in the lexicon of moral panic scholars, folk devils are those individuals who are socially defined or alleged to be responsible for creating a threat to society. Unlike some deviants, folk devils are completely negative. They are the embodiment of evil and the antagonists in a moral panic drama. 

Second, law enforcers such as the police, prosecutors or the military are vital to a moral panic as they are charged with upholding and enforcing the codes of conduct and official laws of the state. These agents of the state are expected to detect, apprehend and punish the folk devils. Law enforcers have a sworn duty and moral obligation to protect society from folk devils when they present themselves. Furthermore, law enforcers must work to justify and maintain their positions in society. A moral panic can offer law enforcers legitimacy and purpose by ridding society of folk devils that allegedly threaten its wellbeing.    

Third, the media are a particularly powerful set of actors in the creation of a moral panic. Typically, news media coverage of certain events involving alleged folk devils is distorted or exaggerated. News coverage makes the folk devils appear to be much more threatening to society than they really are. Public concern and anxiety are heightened by journalistic hyperbole concerning the folk devils. Public concern and anxiety over the folk devils lead to moral panic. 

Moreover, there are two important news media practices that contribute to moral panic. These are known as framing and priming. Framing refers to the way an issue is presented to the public or angle it is given by the news media. Framing involves calling attention to certain aspects of an issue while ignoring or obscuring other elements. In other words, framing gives meaning to an issue. 

Dr. Gaye Tuchman proposed that the news media rely on “news frames” to determine what events to cover and how to cover them (2). Just as the photographer’s choice of lens affects a photograph, the journalist’s choice of news frame affects a story. Tuchman theorized that journalists select news frames for a story based in part on routine procedures and the organizational constraints of their particular medium. 

In addition, the choice of frame is influenced by prior news frames, the power and authority of news sources, history and even ideology. Thus, news frames are contested or negotiated phenomena rather than being based solely on objective events. Most importantly, an audience will react very differently to an issue or story depending on how it is framed by the news media.  

In contrast, priming is a psychological process whereby the news media emphasis on a particular issue not only increases the salience of the issue on the public agenda, but also activates previously acquired information about that issue in people’s memories. The priming mechanism explains how the news frame used in a particular story can trigger an individual’s pre-existing attitudes, beliefs and prejudices regarding that issue. 

An example of priming would be the triggering of varied individual responses such as outrage or pity to the framing of Dr. Conrad Murray—Michael Jackson’s accused killer and personal physician—during his 2011 manslaughter trial. Given the news media’s prior framing of the legendary Michael Jackson as an eccentric and troubled genius, people naturally had different reactions to the framing of Dr. Murray due to their own individual interpretations of the image of Jackson.         

Fourth, politicians are also vital actors in a moral panic drama. As elected officials who must operate in the court of public opinion, politicians must present themselves as the protectors of the moral high ground in society. Similar to law enforcers, politicians have a sworn duty and moral obligation to protect society from folk devils when they arise. 

Politicians often fuel a moral panic by aligning themselves with the news media and law enforcers in a moral crusade against the evils introduced by the folk devils. In other instances, such as the U.S. war on drugs launched in the late 1980s, a key politician such as President Ronald Reagan may define the folk devils—that is, urban crack cocaine dealers—and precipitate a moral panic over the evils of crack cocaine and alleged threats these evils present.   

The fifth and final set of actors, the public, is the most important player in the creation of a moral panic. Public agitation or concern over the folk devils is the central element of a moral panic. A moral panic only exists to the extent that there is an outcry from the public over the alleged threat posed by the folk devils. 

Moreover, the success of politicians, law enforcers and the media in precipitating and sustaining a moral panic is ultimately contingent upon how successfully they fuel concern and outrage toward the folk devils among the public.  

 

 

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, feral chile said:

so wtf are you on about?

same as everyone but you, who can't grasp it.

Jez faked sitting on the floor.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The MPs in question have specifially cited the Mail headlines as reasons for the threats ( and most of them cite them from what has been released)

and some cited Jez & co for the threats against Labour MPs.

Why is one a big deal, and the other not?

 

22 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Saying idiots are idiots doesnt downplay the Mails actions, esp given the facts of the Cox case and the fact this happened before with their points

I'm not trying to downplay them.

You're trying to overplay them, and only because you feel it makes your enemy look bad - as proven by the downplay (or no overplay) about threats to others.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The media have created moral panics for decades. 

exactly.

The fuss being kicked up by the likes of zahid is no reaction to the theme, it's pure partisanship.

And instead of making others think "hang on, the mail is scum" it's causing people to think "we can't take seriously the people who say the mail is scum".

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, zahidf said:

esp given the facts of the Cox case 

ahhh, so mental illness is now nothing to be considered, it's meaningless.

And every 'Islamic terrorist' is never to be given a free pass because of mental illness, and zahid will bang on about their pure evil in a strictly proportional rate to how he just won't shut the fuck up about the far more minor Jo Cox murder.

Edited December 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

same as everyone but you, who can't grasp it.

Jez faked sitting on the floor.

the train can't fill up after it's left the station. This argument was originally used against Corbyn to query how a seat was found before passengers could get off, until the first class upgrade was clarified. Either way, the train had the same numbers on there as it hadn't stopped since Corbyn got on.

Edited December 20, 2017 by feral chile

[zahidf]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

ahhh, so mental illness is now nothing to be considered, it's meaningless.

And every 'Islamic terrorist' is never to be given a free pass because of mental illness, and zahid will bang on about their pure evil in a strictly proportional rate to how he just won't shut the fuck up about the far more minor Jo Cox murder.

Was he found to be mentally ill? im sure he was sent to prison, not a mental hospital

And has any Labour MP specifically cited Jez for the death threats they recieve in the same way souby cites the daily mail?

 

You accuse me of banging on: how many pages are being taken up by traingate:-/

Edited December 20, 2017 by zahidf

[ThomThomDrum]

If this thread was a gif right now

 

https://media.giphy.com/media/tKX6FNU9UGwF2/giphy.gif

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, feral chile said:

the train can't fill up after it's left the station.

but it can fill up an awful lot between the 15+ mins before departure and departure.

 

3 hours ago, feral chile said:

This argument was originally used against Corbyn to query how a seat was found before passengers could get off, until the first class upgrade was clarified. Either way, the train had the same numbers on there as it hadn't stopped since Corbyn got on.

And all ways, Corbyn faked sitting on the floor.

He chose to not sit in available seats.

He chose to sit on the floor when he could have had a seat.

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

Was he found to be mentally ill? im sure he was sent to prison, not a mental hospital

Oh. This is going to be hard going.

OK let's do it the other way: just about every 'Islamic terrorist' is sent to prison and not a mental hospital.

You never mention the far FAR greater *REAL* harm that come from them.

 

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

And has any Labour MP specifically cited Jez for the death threats they recieve in the same way souby cites the daily mail?

Nope, but just as the mail doesn't say "go and kill", nor has Jez and cohorts.

Incitement takes many forms - most usually people reading stuff in that was never there, or even meant.

 

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

You accuse me of banging on: how many pages are being taken up by traingate:-/

if you're going to shoot the messenger, at least be smart enough to identify the right target, eh?

It's not me banging on, it's me correcting Ms Nofacts.

[feral chile]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh. This is going to be hard going.

OK let's do it the other way: just about every 'Islamic terrorist' is sent to prison and not a mental hospital.

You never mention the far FAR greater *REAL* harm that come from them.

 

Nope, but just as the mail doesn't say "go and kill", nor has Jez and cohorts.

Incitement takes many forms - most usually people reading stuff in that was never there, or even meant.

 

if you're going to shoot the messenger, at least be smart enough to identify the right target, eh?

It's not me banging on, it's me correcting Ms Nofacts.

And I don't really care about ancient history, but you do keep dragging me into your current arguments, so I end up defending myself.

It's a bit passive aggressive you know - you're having a separate conversation and reference 'someone' who's not even involved in it till then.

I should really ignore you though.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And I don't really care about ancient history, but you do keep dragging me into your current arguments, so I end up defending myself.

It's a bit passive aggressive you know - you're having a separate conversation and reference 'someone' who's not even involved in it till then.

I should really ignore you though.

yeah, your failure to understand the facts and the point is my fault.

Edited December 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, zahidf said:

The MPs in question have specifially cited the Mail headlines as reasons for the threats ( and most of them cite them from what has been released)

Saying idiots are idiots doesnt downplay the Mails actions, esp given the facts of the Cox case and the fact this happened before with their points

So should the word traitor be banned? 

[feral chile]

51 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

So should the word traitor be banned? 

It should be challenged, all this talk of traitors and enemies of the people has a worrying precedent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Quote

The words "ennemi du peuple" were extensively used during the French revolution. On 25 December 1793 Robespierre stated: "The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation; it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death".[4] The Law of 22 Prairial in 1794 extended the remit of the Revolutionary Tribunal to punish "enemies of the people", with some political crimes punishable by death, including "spreading false news to divide or trouble the people".[5]

Quote

 

During the aftermath of the referendum on membership of the European Union, the Daily Mail was criticized for a headline describing the judges which ruled (in the Miller case) as "Enemies of the People" for ruling that the process for leaving the European Union (i.e. the triggering of Article 50) would require the consent of the British Parliament. The May administration had hoped to use the powers of the royal prerogative to bypass parliamentary approval.[18] The paper issued character assassinations of all the judges involved in the ruling (Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales), and received more than 1,000 complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.[19][20] The Secretary of State for Justice, Liz Truss issued a three line statement defending the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which some saw as inadequate due to the delayed response and failure to condemn the attacks.[21][22]

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

It should be challenged, all this talk of traitors and enemies of the people has a worrying precedent:

Why? It's a legitimate (tho extreme) view of someone who wanted to leave for the sovereignty reasons, which was a significant chunk of those who you want to only see as racist.

Anything which might obstruct the return of that sovereignty is (to them) potentially traitorous.

But they're an extreme view, and clearly a minority view, and them being extreme is best exposed to those not paying full attention by not being extreme in response.

 

[feral chile]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why? It's a legitimate (tho extreme) view of someone who wanted to leave for the sovereignty reasons, which was a significant chunk of those who you want to only see as racist.

Anything which might obstruct the return of that sovereignty is (to them) potentially traitorous.

But they're an extreme view, and clearly a minority view, and them being extreme is best exposed to those not paying full attention by not being extreme in response.

 

what, like undermining democracy by sidestepping parliament?

when they say sovereignty, do they mean Queen May?

Edited December 20, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

what, like undermining democracy by sidestepping parliament?

that's a step *before* (to them) sovereignty gets returned. It's (potentially) stopping sovereignty being returned.

 

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

when they say sovereignty, do they mean Queen May?

May wanted there to not be a vote. She lost on that. Parliament seems to be working pretty well to me.

She didn't scream 'traitors', that was other people outside of Parliament.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

that's a step *before* (to them) sovereignty gets returned. It's (potentially) stopping sovereignty being returned.

 

May wanted there to not be a vote. She lost on that. Parliament seems to be working pretty well to me.

She didn't scream 'traitors', that was other people outside of Parliament.

I realise this, but these other people are essentially wanting to have a dictatorship.