The Political Thread

[sheridan]

"Darkside" - Lunar penal colony on the far side of the moon where enemies of Gaia and humanity are sent to work in the mines, never to see the Earth again.

[The Legendary Shark]

Ha! One of the best terrible films of all time!

[Tjm86]

My objection isn't to the doing, it's to the dangerous delusion that me, you, our kids or our grandkids are getting off this world to go to a better one.

Have you been at the Baxter?  This is the core of his Manifold series!  Or KSR's "Aurora" - a failed attempt at colonisation.  It's a fair point though.  Those who will be in charge of such an endeavour are pulled from the same gene pool that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

[Hawkmumbler]

Nearly 1K pages of this shite. How fitting we're now looking to bugger off to the moon at this point.

[Smith]

Does the state have the right to decide the morality for the people?Does the state have the right to shield its citizens from obscenity or should anyone decide for themselves?Is all expression actually equal?

[Funt Solo]

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" is both freedom of speech and potentially incitement to violence.

And thus the question perhaps becomes "Does the state have the right to curb incitement to violence"?

[The Legendary Shark]

The state is just a collective noun for a group of people, so I tend to think about these questions from that perspective and then, if possible, boil it down even further to individuals.

Does one person have the right to keep secrets from another? I think so, yes. Does one person have the right to act secretly to harm another? I don't think so, no. Does one person have the right to keep an external threat secret from another? Yes, I think so but I also think that to do so is morally repugnant. Does one person have the right to order another to injure a third party? If no coercion is used, yes but, again, I think this is morally repugnant. Does one person have the right to injure another if ordered by a third party? No, I don't think so.

For me, it all comes down to personal rights and responsibilities. If a single person cannot do a thing then it must follow that a group of people, or a state, cannot do that thing either. If a single person has a responsibility then it likewise must follow that a group of people, or a state, must bear that responsibility as well.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I see Theresa May has referred to EU migrants as 'queue jumpers'. Queue jumping will, of course, be curtailed after next March.

Yep, those who have simply exercised their rights in the past were somehow barging, or sneaking, ahead of everyone else. Wonder if she'd have a problem with my mother legally jumping the queue to move from England to Ireland?  Or perhaps all those Brits who live in the Costa del Sol?

Or maybe, god forbid, she's a bigot at worst or a licker of bigots' arses at best?

[Professor Bear]

Vicargate is, IMO, the dumbest BBC scandal - yes, even dumber than covering up the actions of pedophiles for decades or naming journalistic sources inside the defence ministry that subsequently turn up dead in the woods.  Even dumber than that Blue Peter presenter from Northern Ireland who draw a picture of Ireland and coloured it in with the Union flag and then held it up onscreen and then said later it was an honest mistake kind of like when you pay your longest-serving presenter considerably less than her white co-presenters "for some reason."

I will point out, though, that Vicargate lady had a CV that included a bit-part in The Force Awakens playing a despondent scavenger dwelling in a backwater post-Empire wasteland, so quite why the BBC thought she'd be perfect to play someone who supports May's Brexit deal, etc etc

[Dandontdare]

Had to google this and I'm confused - What's the scandal? The Mail & Express have whipped it into some fake controversy (natch), but there's nothing there. She's a pastor who has also done some extra work and the BBC insist she was not hired to appear, but was just part of the debate. The most offended comments seem to be that she was a pastor in some fringe Christian group and not a 'real' vicar - "You allowed her to come on dressed as a Vicar, which gave the impression she was a respected person with standing in her community." (sic) - not sure what the BBC dress code is for a topical debate, but I doubt they check ecclesiastical credentials at the door.

[Professor Bear]

I explicitly said this was a dumb scandal.

Incidentally, this might damage the BBC's chances in hosting the Leaders' Debate as it started trending on the same day the BBC made its intentions explicit, though I'm sure that didn't occur to any of the journalists working at C4 or ITV when they weighed in on the topic and made their thousands of followers aware of it.

[Dandontdare]

Ah, I thought you meant dumb as in dumb for them to have done it, which could apply to your other examples - the BBC has made some incredibly stupid decisions, but this seems to be just redtop mischief-mongering and faux-outrage.

Any Private Eye reader will be will be well-briefed on tabloid hypocrisy - "Stop the disgusting sexualisation of children, lock up these paedos ... but visit our website to see how This Celebrity's 14yr old Daughter is Blossoming into Womanhood in These Bikini Pics...".

They often lambast ministers for doing exactly what they were urging them to do the previous month, some of the Brexit convolutions have been hilarious . One of the best reverse-ferrets recently has been the Sun's attitude to Chris Evans now that he's joined the radio station they own - overnight he's been transformed from an arrogant, overpaid talentless drunkard, to the greatest broadcaster of all time

[Modern Panther]

I doubt they check ecclesiastical credentials at the door.

She wasn't just sitting in an audience and asked a question. She was part of a small, selected group, intended to represent the views of the nation, who were in front of the camera, asked to give their views on Brexit...but she's leader of a scam internet church, who appeared to be dressed as a vicar of the Church of England. In doing so, it gave undue credence to her views, in the same way it would if they had introduced her as a doctor, or professor, or knight of the garter.

The BBC might not be checking credentials at the door, but I would certainly hope that if they invite someone in front of camera, they make sure they're not pretending to be something they're not.

It's been a long term problem with the BBC. The number of 'ordinary members of the public' who appear in the audience of Question Time who are actually plants, or who were selected because they would say something ridiculous, is absurd. 

[Frank]

(she) appeared to be dressed as a vicar of the Church of England. In doing so, it gave undue credence to her views, in the same way it would if they had introduced her as a doctor, or professor, or knight of the garter

I'm really not sure that's true. Maybe in 1950.

[Funt Solo]

Vicar of the Church of England: delusion belief in a sky fairy. No inherent qualifications for economic expertise.

Order of the Garter: privilege granted through the inherent unfairness of a system of birthright class discrimination. No inherent qualifications for economic expertise.

Doctor: evidence of education.  No inherent qualifications for economic expertise.

Professor: of economics?