Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Dave Coull
|
Definition | The Concise Oxford Dictionary wrote: | | Target (v) select as an object of attention or attack |
E.G. "Murdoch newspapers, like many other newspapers, frequently carry cartoons in which the cartoonists target prominent politicians".
|
Rinty
|
Dave, I can understand mods wanting to avoid the trouble that this could cause the forum.
I think it is unfair to pressurise them and, although I agree with your points, know that it is impossible to discuss aspects of this rationally without lurkers wasting the thread and the forum with their interventions.
I think that the mods attitude to this has been the right one and we should respect and support their decisions, as the decisions are based on their view of what is best for the forum overall.
I suggest you email me and you get involved with the DEFEND TOMMY SHERIDAN (DTS) campaign. You would be an asset, I am sure.
Murdoch's newspapers target people all of the time. My friend and comrade Irene Lang was a target last year when they run a false story about her. As she was an election candidate this breached the 'representaton of the people' act, making their story a criminal offence. Of course, the police decided to take no action.
The DTS campaign is independent of Solidarity and includes many campaigners from other campaigns, trades unions etc. www.defendtommysheridan.org and is probably the best place to join with others who would appreciate your thoughts and your ideas on how to respond to Murdoch.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Rinty wrote: | | Murdoch's newspapers target people all of the time. My friend and comrade Irene Lang was a target last year when they run a false story about her. As she was an election candidate this breached the 'representaton of the people' act, making their story a criminal offence. Of course, the police decided to take no action. |
Selective application or non-application of the law in the interests of the rich and powerful. Happens all the time. And as for "Murdoch's newspapers target people all the time" - indeed they do. Which is why I say, the time has come to target Murdoch. Not just one of his whores, but the man himself. It may be objected that Murdoch is not a politician. OF COURSE HE IS. He just isn't the kind of politician who stands for election, that's all. He is the kind of powerful un-elected politician who has the Tony Blairs and the Gordon Browns fawning on him. He is the kind of un-elected politician who pulls the strings. He has been getting away with this for far too long, and I say the time has come to turn the spotlight on the man at the head of the Murdoch empire. | Rinty wrote: | | Dave, I can understand mods wanting to avoid the trouble that this could cause the forum. |
I can understand it to. I can understand the position they are in, and I'm glad I'm not a moderator. But I wasn't attempting to discuss the evidence in a current court case, nor was I attempting to pre-empt the decision of a jury in that case. I was dealing with a much larger, POLITICAL question. It is a fact that conflicts of evidence happen in courts all the time. It is a fact that, in most of these conflicts of evidence, the conflict is so direct, somebody must not be telling the truth. And yet, in 999 cases out of one thousand, these conflicts of evidence do not lead to a prosecution for perjury. So why is this the one in a thousand case? I suggest that the decision to pursue this particular case and not the 999 others is a POLITICAL decision. I recognise why the moderators feel they have to ban even discussion of the POLITICAL workings of the "justice" system. It's a form of self-censorship in order to avoid a more direct form of censorship. Similar things happen in Putin's Russia, similar things happen in the Ayatollah's Iran, etc, etc. | Rinty wrote: | | I suggest you email me and you get involved with the DEFEND TOMMY SHERIDAN (DTS) campaign. |
I have no intention of getting involved in the DTS campaign. For one thing, membership of such a group would limit my freedom to speak out as and when I see fit. There would be sure to be pressures from such an organised group along the lines of "it's not in the interests of Tommy's defense to discuss such-and-such-a-matter publicly just now". And besides, as I thought I had made clear, for me, this is about a larger question than just what happens to either Tommy or Gail Sheridan.
|
agentmancuso
|
As this thread is entitled 'definition', it might be worth suggesting that on occasion the opposite of 'self-censorship' might not be 'self-expression', but 'self-indulgence'.
|
|
|
|