pacifictheme
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2013
- Messages
- 7,794
Agree with danh, sources should be protected. Positives outweigh the negatives.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
It depends if the source is the racist, then no.Agree with danh, sources should be protected. Positives outweigh the negatives.
Especially if the source is a potential political representative. I'd like to know if my local MP or councillor had made bigoted statements for example.It depends if the source is the racist, then no.
The journalist won't reveal their source because then nobody would provide them with anything. The source doesn't need to come forward because the party he was speaking for knows who said it, but if they say who it is their claim that they don't speak for the party become even more laughable than it is now. He's not a MP, but he's on the NEC, he's got previous for saying exactly this sort of thing and faced no punishment for it. He's untouchable and the fact the party isn't ever going to out him shows that they think that too. He represents them now, he'll represent them tomorrow and he'll represent them next week/month/year.Ok, it is a terrible statement and shouldn't have been said, but what level of proof do you think it's appropriate to have before naming/taking action against an individual? If this quote was given on a confidential basis to a journalist then you/the party may be pretty certain who said it but where is the evidence beyond feelings if the journalist doesn't name the source and the source doesn't come forward?
Criticism of the journalist for not naming the source may be valid, but overall I think it's better to live in a society where journalists will protect their sources as I think that freedom of information is beneficial on balance even if it can at times seem unfair/frustrating.
So Labour shit on Muslim voters, likening them to Hamas, to blame for them losing an election they've won anyway?
I'm intrigued about how you know this?The journalist won't reveal their source because then nobody would provide them with anything. The source doesn't need to come forward because the party he was speaking for knows who said it, but if they say who it is their claim that they don't speak for the party become even more laughable than it is now. He's not a MP, but he's on the NEC, he's got previous for saying exactly this sort of thing and faced no punishment for it. He's untouchable and the fact the party isn't ever going to out him shows that they think that too. He represents them now, he'll represent them tomorrow and he'll represent them next week/month/year.
Luckily for Starmer our media are more likely to ask him where he thinks Lord Lucan is than to name and shame the Reg Holdsworth lookalike.
I'm impressed. Labour took everything Hamas had to throw at them and still won.
I'm impressed. Labour took everything Hamas had to throw at them and still won.
I'm impressed. Labour took everything Hamas had to throw at them and still won.
That's their problem, wants to play like a United team and they lost half their seats in the country, ETH would be pleasedTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent oppositionAdd to that its clear ULEZ wasn't the electoral minefield everyone thought it would be. Turns out people like having cleaner air in their neighbourhoods and around their workplaces and green spaces.
All the Tories needed was someone like Rory Stewart. He would have wiped the floor with Khan.Genuinely very happy to see the Labour vote significantly drop in the Muslim population and that the Greens have made large gains. Some positive news in what has been 7 months of sadness over Gaza.
The Muslim voting block is a very big one, and yet doesn't feel anywhere near as influential or organised as say the Jewish voting block in America is. I'm very glad to see that people backed the Greens who very early on called for a ceasefire.
In London, Khan winning was always pretty likely in my view. He's insulated from the Gaza stuff because he's always strayed from the Labour line, and I expect most Londoners are actually pro less polluting cars. Of course the Conservatives fielding three terrible candidates in a row hasn't helped them. You don't need another Boris but just some regular professional guy with no history of xenophobic comments would've helped them tremendously, something all of the last three have failed to be.
Nothing stealthy about it - it factually gives cleaner air in London.ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent opposition
it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.Nothing stealthy about it - it factually gives cleaner air in London.
is the tax on cigarettes a stealth tax?
Believe it or not, the best way to make money from car use is to reduce it, not to tax it. The externalities stemming from private car use are way more costly than whatever taxes they offer, including ulez, ved and fuel duty.it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.
Thankfully London seems to disagree with you. Most of us here appreciate having cleaner air. He's by no means a perfect mayor, but a breath of fresh air (literally) compared to the clown that preceded him as well as the clowns who are offered as an alternative.ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent opposition
Let me guess, black cab driver?Then on top of that, he's turned London into a fecking cesspit. Lawlessness, knife crime, gang culture, divisions and lack of social cohesion, expensive transport.
it's hard to believe that he could have done a worse job. Yet gets a 3rd term
The clue is in the name, I'd have thought.it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.
Reform candidate probably.Let me guess, black cab driver?
My car is 12 years old and ULEZ exempt. You have to really try to find a car that has to pay the ULEZ charge.The clue is in the name, I'd have thought.
Still exempt for ulez charge though.
He was probably the best of the Tory Mayors to be fair and it’s a big blow for him to lose for the Tories.Andy Street losing for about 1500 votes in West Midlands has to be one of the biggest Tory failures in recent times, considering they were so keen to bring in the first past the post system
How do you manage to go into every CE thread and be the worst poster in it?Then on top of that, he's turned London into a fecking cesspit. Lawlessness, knife crime, gang culture, divisions and lack of social cohesion, expensive transport.
it's hard to believe that he could have done a worse job. Yet gets a 3rd term
True. He'd have won if he went independent.He was probably the best of the Tory Mayors to be fair and it’s a big blow for him to lose for the Tories.