Free Speech in the UK

[Cope]

I'm expanding the discussion, being in the UK, I would like to express some free speech within it.

The fact that the press attempts to manipulate its audience doesn't disprove that the ASA's decision was ridiculous.

Why is there a transatlantic understanding that is it reasonable to say , write or broadcast any old drivel including outright lies to build up a myth that UK government institutions, whoever their political masters are are beholden to political correctness? Melanie Philips is paid a lot to make up racist and islamophobic drivel. Boris Johnson was paid a six figure sum for writing myths about the EU. The Sun had it in for EU migrants, blaming them for eating 'our swans' and 'our carp'. Fox News broadcast lies about Muslim only areas in the UK which if published by a Islamist extremist would have landed a short jail term. It's all bollocks , but I doubt it is just about the wonga received by highly paid 'journalists'. who write this pap.

So who benefits from this dialogue? Racists/misogynists and other -ists benefit in so far that , if organised, they can collect followers and if not , can persuade themselves to harass and assualt their pet hates. By posting these myths, less educated working people will fix their grievances on migrants,the EU, Muslims, Jews, PC, women not knowing their place instead of exploitative employers, rogue landlords, greedy corporations, tax dodgers , austerity. It works too, Cameron, arguably Britain's worst PM since Lord North got re-elected. Mrs May, whose only achievement was a tax on plastic bags, was also re-elected . Now we have Boris. This 'free speech' seems to have come at an enormous price.

We can't have an open debate about this unless you're willing to concede that press manipulation occurs on either side of the political aisle. It's laughable that you raise the issue of antisemitism in conjunction with conservatism and the right-wing press whilst seemingly ignoring that it has developed a well-documented institutional presence within the Labour Party.

[mongrel]

It's a fact, promoting the political correctness myth is often a lucrative business, for the journalists who write these false articles, for bloggers who milk rich donors and plebs who should know better for donations and the corporations/ultra wealthy/ tax dodgers who benefit as working people turn on themselves rather than on the real source of their misery.

So -called "political correctness" is used by those in a position of privilege to silence issues raised by marginalized people. Effectively they are saying that their concerns don't deserve to be voiced, much less addressed. Hence the bollocks here about the ASA case. It's the government's fault for daring to permit an industry to modernise it's view on stereotyping. It must be down to these social justice types, because their views are different to one's own. This nonsense is the antithesis of 'free speech'.

[Cope]

It's a fact, promoting the political correctness myth is often a lucrative business, for the journalists who write these false articles, for bloggers who milk rich donors and plebs who should know better for donations and the corporations/ultra wealthy/ tax dodgers who benefit as working people turn on themselves rather than on the real source of their misery.

So -called "political correctness" is used by those in a position of privilege to silence issues raised by marginalized people. Effectively they are saying that their concerns don't deserve to be voiced, much less addressed. hence the bollocks here about the ASA case. It's the government's fault for daring to permit an industry to modernise it's view on stereotyping. It must be down to these social justice types, because their views are different to one's own. This nonsense is the antithesis of 'free speech'.

These ham-fisted attempts to link issues of free-speech, "political correctness" and modernity in such a way so as to justify your own flagrant political biases are nauseatingly poor. We cannot have an open debate about this unless you're willing to concede that manipulative practices are common to both sides of the political aisle, not just the one you disagree with.

[mongrel]

I believe this is the Political Academy, not flame school. And I have said it before, there is no 'we'.

It's a fact that despite there being, according to these charlatans an entire army of 'politically correct officials, politicians , elitists, yet no-one will ever find an account of someone campaigning for political correctness, just people campaigning against a made up imaginary enemy, whilst raking in the money.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

[Cope]

I

It's a fact that despite there being, according to these charlatans an entire army of 'politically correct officials, politicians , elitists, yet no-one will ever find an account of someone campaigning for political correctness, just people campaigning against a made up imaginary enemy, whilst raking in the money.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

So because the people campaigning for intrusive forms of political correctness don't call what they're campaigning for political correctness that means that they aren't campaigning for it? And your evidence for this asinine claim is an article published by a news outlet which has a long history of advocating for intrusive forms of political correctness? Utterly laughable.

[mongrel]

So because the people campaigning for intrusive forms of political correctness don't call what they're campaigning for political correctness that means that they aren't campaigning for it? And your evidence for this asinine claim is an article published by a news outlet which has a long history of advocating for intrusive forms of political correctness? Utterly laughable.

The Guardian is run by a trust and is not influenced by tax-exiles, foreign oligarchs or Rupert Murdoch.It is therefore unlikely to be a mouthpiece for the privileged elite.

Political Correctness is a made up term. It doesn't exist, so no-one is going to campaign for it. It is just a hook for charlatans to hang their prejudices on.

A prime example of this is the manufactured crap over the term 'Happy Holidays'.

The use of Happy Holidays” as a seasonal greeting in the United States is recorded as early as 1863, in the Philadelphia Inquirer. By the middle of the 20th century, the phrase was well established in popular usage, as shown in a study of ads run by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in Carolina Magazine from 1935 to 1942

A 1937 ad proclaimed: “A gift of Camels says, ‘Happy Holidays and Happy Smoking!’” Other ads from the 1930s and early 1940s stuck to “Season’s Greetings,” but all featured grinning Santa Clauses and other recognizable Christmas symbols.

However in 2005 John Gibson, anchor of The Big Story on Fox News, published a book entitled: The War On Christmas: How The Liberal Plot To Ban The Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.He suggested the phrase “happy holidays” was no longer as innocent as some believed. Instead, it was portrayed as an act of liberal aggression.

The message was adopted by fellow Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, who repeated it more or less every year and others on the grounds that the use of 'happy holidays' was designed to eliminate Christianity. Trump jumped on the bandwagondespite there being no evidence whatsoever that people were deterred from using the term 'Christmas'.

A Public Policy Polling survey found that more than 80% of Americans don't give a crap what people called Xmas. Oddly enough Trump supporters tend to fall into the remaining 20%.

examples of Xmas bollocks:

"Of course it's a war on Christianity — or, more precisely, a war on the religious nature of America," Dennis Prager of National Review wrote in 2015.

"This whole push to remove Christ from the Christmas season has gotten so ridiculous that it's pathetic," the CNN contributor Roland Martin wrote in 2007. "Because of all the politically correct idiots, we are being encouraged to stop saying 'Merry Christmas' for the more palatable 'Happy Holidays.'"

"This intentional and deliberate exclusion of 'Merry Christmas' in the Federated Department Stores advertising and decorations is extremely offensive to the culture and tradition of Americans who honor and celebrate Christmas," the mission statement for the Committee to Save Merry Christmas say"

[Cope]

The Guardian is held by a trust and is not influenced by tax-exiles, foreign oligarchs or Rupert Murdoch.It is therefore unlikely to be a mouthpiece for the privileged elite.

Political Correctness is a made up term. It doesn't exist, so no-one is going to campaign for it. It is just a hook for charlatans to hang their prejudices on.

Overzealous language and expression policing do, despite your protestations, exist. The fact that the Guardian - which regularly patronizes the sort of hand-wringing "journalism" which promotes authoritarian speech codes - tries to gaslight its audience into believing that its all some sort of myth is itself evidence that it isn't a myth at all. That doesn't mean that certain elements on the right don't try and exploit irritation at progressive language policing for financial and/or political purposes, but to try and argue that its all some sort of fabrication is self-evidently fallacious.

[mongrel]

promotes authoritarian speech codes .

What the hell is that? Did you accidentally swallow Mao's Red Book when you was a child? A little bit of plain English wouldn't hurt. This kind of nonsense is precisely what drives the nonsense I'm talking about. One has a different opinion, it must be destroyed by boring us to death meaningless cliches.Bollocks to that.If you want a flame war don't use comedy language.

Some more bollocks on PC.

We are told that people don't use the term 'manhole cover, lest it offend women.That's news to the sane world.

It describes the happy holidays nonsense as a 'war against assimilation', that no-one uses the term 'terrorist or illegal alien(news to me). The author whinges about the dropping of trademarks by the Washington Redskins (an issue of some importance to Native Americans I understand) as an example if how the government prioritised PC over the economy, migration and terrorism. What . Why do journo write such crap?

http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories...hy,5105?page=1

[Cope]

What the hell is that? Did you accidentally swallow Mao's Red Book when you was a child? A little bit of plain English wouldn't hurt. This kind of nonsense is precisely what drives the nonsense I'm talking about. One has a different opinion, it must be destroyed by boring us to death meaningless cliches.Bollocks to that.If you want a flame war don't use comedy language.

The phrase ought to be self-explanatory. Almost everyone regulates their own expressions in accordance with social and/or legal requirements. This is what I'm referring to when I mention "speech codes". People who seek to control the nature of everyday conversation by by shoehorning their hand-wringing moralism into the range of acceptable speech are thus promoting authoritarian speech codes. Historically this was a specialty of the religious right, but it has since been adopted by the progressive left.

[mongrel]

The phrase ought to be self-explanatory. Almost everyone regulates their own expressions in accordance with social and/or legal requirements. This is what I'm referring to when I mention "speech codes". People who seek to control the nature of everyday conversation by by shoehorning their hand-wringing moralism into the range of acceptable speech are thus promoting authoritarian speech codes. Historically this was a specialty of the religious right, but it has since been adopted by the progressive left.

To quote yourself 'overzealous language' . Use of plain English cuts out the crap for example the turgid 'Almost everyone regulates their own expressions in accordance with social and/or legal requirements' is readily fixed by saying 'Almost everyone has good manners'.Use of proper language helps prevent . In your distorted political babble you would say that one must 'utilise hand-wringing moralism within acceptable speech parameters towards females', whereas normal humans would say that 'I show good manners to ladies and treat them properly'.
The use of such language also masks the fact that you are providing no arguments whatsoever. Chuck your Little Red Book away.

[Cope]

To quote yourself 'overzealous language' . Use of plain English cuts out the crap for example the turgid 'Almost everyone regulates their own expressions in accordance with social and/or legal requirements' is readily fixed by saying 'Almost everyone has good manners'.Use of proper language helps prevent . In your distorted political babble you would say that one must 'utilise hand-wringing moralism within acceptable speech parameters towards females', whereas normal humans would say that 'I show good manners to ladies and treat them properly'.

The use of such language also masks the fact that you are providing no arguments whatsoever. Chuck your Little Red Book away.

This has nothing to do with "manners" and everything to do with tinpot authoritarians trying to dictate to the rest of society how they're able to express themselves. Off the top of my head, these are some basic examples:

A Nobel Prize winning, 70 year old professor being harassed (with the help of the Guardian) out of the United Kingdom for making a single joke which was deemed to be off-colour; A child being dragged through the criminal justice system for reciting the lyrics of a song; A teenager being barred from his education for daring to assert the existence of a gender binary; A Prime Minster being swept up in controversy for having the temerity to launch a policy using the phrase "British jobs for British workers"; The police refusing to follow up on reports of abuse partially out of fear of being categorized as racist; a doctor with 26 years of experience being fired for voicing mainstream Christian views (which were mainstream in secular society less than five years ago); Academics, teachers and professors living in fear of being sacked for offending their own progressive pupils; The student union of a university known for its journalism school banning nationally syndicated newspapers on its campus; The Canadians mandating by law the use of certain pronouns and; employees at Neflix being banned from looking at each other for more than five seconds.

And on and on goes the list goes. But yeah, it's all just a fantasy cooked up by the right wing press which doesn't have any real world implications whatsoever. And given the way in which, in this thread alone, you've sought to instruct me on what I can and cannot comment on whilst crying wolf about racism and other forms of bigotry, I can hardly say I'm surprised that you're an advocate for such forms of censorship.

[mongrel]

At last, fresh material and a post that uses the English language the way it should be , rather than that used by some 60s commie student. Well done.

Some of these examples look readily debunkable to me. I'll pick three, then revisit some others later, otherwise we will be looking at a wall of text so large it would solve Trump's policy problem.


Let's do the obvious one , Gordon Brown promising 'British jobs for British workers. It was a promise he could not deliver because no employer can justifiably discriminate on the basis of race or nationality (unless there is a genuine occupying reasons as set out in legislation). Putting aside the racism, it's illegal. The Guardian was 100% correct, when it said his statement was' branded meaningless, racist and illegal' because it was.

That scientist who you said you harrassed. I note that he told the World Conference of Science Journalists this: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.” Seriously , you are defending this sexist . He was in favour of single-sex labs, adding that he didn’t want to “stand in the way of women”.Is he ing Taliban or something? Just because he's a scientist he does not get a pass to flout decent employment practice. If a retailer or banker said such rubbish, they would be out by their ear and good riddance.

Rapper boy, yes harsh treatment, but you missed out the part about Her Majesty's judiciary considering the Police attitude 'ridiculous'.

Are all your examples so easy to debunk? Looks as if the cartoon I had posted earlier was quite perceptive. More later.

[Cope]

At last, fresh material and a post that uses the English language the way it should be , rather than that used by some 60s commie student. Well done.

Oh look, mongrel on expression patrol again. Typical.

Let's do the obvious one , Gordon Brown promising 'British jobs for British workers. It was a promise he could not deliver because no employer can justifiably discriminate on the basis of race or nationality (unless there is a genuine occupying reasons as set out in legislation). Putting aside the racism, it's illegal. The Guardian was 100% correct, when it said his statement was' branded meaningless, racist and illegal' because it was.

Rubbish. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is entitled to launch a policy directed toward the citizens of his own country - ie. British workers. At no point did Gordon Brown (who is so obviously not racist it's laughable) say "British jobs only for British workers". He was right to stand by his statement.

That scientist who you said you harrassed. I note that he told the World Conference of Science Journalists this: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.” Seriously , you are defending this sexist . He was in favour of single-sex labs, adding that he didn’t want to “stand in the way of women”.Is he ing Taliban or something? Just because he's a scientist he does not get a pass to flout decent employment practice. If a retailer or banker said such rubbish, they would be out by their ear and good riddance.

Summarily firing a senior citizen and then harassing him out of the country for telling a mildly off-colour joke (you know those things which aren't meant to be taken seriously) was an utterly disproportionate response. Your self-righteous moral posturing and ridiculous comparisons between Hunt's comments and the behaviour of the Taliban is ludicrous. It serves only to prove that people with your opinions ought to be nowhere near any body which regulates forms of expression.

Rapper boy, yes harsh treatment, but you missed out the part about Her Majesty's judiciary considering the Police attitude 'ridiculous'.

The victim in the case was a girl, not a "rapper boy" and she wasn't merely the subject of police impropriety, but also a faulty charge and a wrongful conviction. The fact that it took so long for the judiciary to clear her illustrates the extent to which overzealous language policing has poisoned institutions in the United Kingdom. Had her conviction not been overturned, you'd be on here defending it with the same sort of zeal as you defend almost all instances of progressive insanity.

Are all your examples so easy to debunk? Looks as if the cartoon I had posted earlier was quite perceptive. More later.

You've debunked nothing. All you've done is shown yourself to be on the side of authoritarian lunacy. Congratulations.

[mongrel]

Oh look, mongrel on expression patrol again. Typical.

I have told you to chuck away the commie book language. Do....it...............now.



The Prime Minister is not above the law of the land. It wasn't even 'his policy'. The racist National Front and the BNP used that slogan first. As the law is clearthat direct discrimination on grounds of race or nationality is unlawful, end of conversation.

That senior citizen was supposed to be professional. He failed those standards spectactularly. It is up to the employer whether to retain his services, not the Guardian, not the Government. They fired the waste of space. If he had a problem with that , the UK has a functional tribunal system where he could explain why an insistution should retain the services of a sexist arse.Again As the dismissal appears perfectly lawful, end of conversation. Oh yes rapper girl, my bad. As I said the Police were overzelous, PC or not having awareness of urban culture, something you would consider PC if they did. However I have demonstrated that the UK's laws frown on such harrassment despite your protestations so end of conversation.

Moving on, kid discplined for abuse of phone policy. The issue is what exactly? That the discussion is about gender is hardly relevant.In my day he would have got a clip around the ear and a good spanking for being cheeky to their teacher, the effing junior snowflake. Is school indiscipline your thing now? Bollocks to that.I note his attempt to hussle money online, presumably from sympathetic bigots. Must investigate further.

Rotherham, name one part of the old Race Relations Act that would prevent the reporting of criminal acts. The problem is with incompetent officials. Flogged to death in related forums so end of conversation here.

Doctor in breach of Civil Service Code, well tough, the job isn't for him. It's not a stain on his character,but he should have known what he signed up to. As it is a clear breach of contract, not 'pc',end of conversation.



Here's a fair, if perhaps overly left-wing summary of the 'PC gone mad' industry.

https://ducksoap.wordpress.com/2019/09/07/the-gits/

[Cope]

I have told you to chuck away the commie book language. Do....it...............now.



The Prime Minister is not above the law of the land. It wasn't even 'his policy'. The racist National Front and the BNP used that slogan first. As the law is clearthat direct discrimination on grounds of race or nationality is unlawful, end of conversation.

That senior citizen was supposed to be professional. He failed those standards spectactularly. It is up to the employer whether to retain his services, not the Guardian, not the Government. They fired the waste of space. If he had a problem with that , the UK has a functional tribunal system where he could explain why an insistution should retain the services of a sexist arse.Again As the dismissal appears perfectly lawful, end of conversation. Oh yes rapper girl, my bad. As I said the Police were overzelous, PC or not having awareness of urban culture, something you would consider PC if they did. However I have demonstrated that the UK's laws frown on such harrassment despite your protestations so end of conversation.

Moving on, kid discplined for abuse of phone policy. The issue is what exactly? That the discussion is about gender is hardly relevant.In my day he would have got a clip around the ear and a good spanking for being cheeky to their teacher, the effing junior snowflake. Is school indiscipline your thing now? Bollocks to that.I note his attempt to hussle money online, presumably from sympathetic bigots. Must investigate further.

Rotherham, name one part of the old Race Relations Act that would prevent the reporting of criminal acts. The problem is with incompetent officials. Flogged to death in related forums so end of conversation here.

Doctor in breach of Civil Service Code, well tough, the job isn't for him. It's not a stain on his character,but he should have known what he signed up to. As it is a clear breach of contract, not 'pc',end of conversation.

This is nothing more than a cacophony of excuses, false equivalences and non-sequitur arguments designed to justify the sort of ideological bullying and railroading which people who seek to control the language and expressions of others are known for. The fact that you see no moral distinction between a tepid joke and the Taliban tells us all we need to know about the extents to which you're willing to go to in order to rationalize your advocacy for the sort of authoritarian lunacy evidenced above. For my part, I shall continue to resist and oppose such poison wherever and whenever I see it.

[mongrel]

This is nothing more than a cacophony of excuses, false equivalences and non-sequitur arguments designed to justify the sort of ideological bullying and railroading which people who seek to control the language and expressions of others are known for. The fact that you see no moral distinction between a tepid joke and the Taliban tells us all we need to know about the extents to which you're willing to go to in order to rationalize your advocacy for the sort of authoritarian lunacy evidenced above. For my part, I shall continue to resist and oppose such poison wherever and whenever I see it.

Oh noes gone back to the 'Little Red Book ' language, perhaps out of frustration of not being able to defend the indefensible rationally. Never mind , for a couple of hours you were able to use non hysterical language, so hope springs eternal.

Now for the rest. Stundents excercising their own free will vote on a non-binding motion to ban three newspapers known to puff the agendas of their foreign or tax dodging owners. I literally cannot give a about this poor example , it affects no-one and doesn't tell me what I don't know, that the Sun , Express and the Mail are considered newspapers making money from reinforcing the misery of others. No further comment, as it's not interesting enough. Likewise I don't propose to discuss what happens in Canada or the US because the title of the thread is self-evident. It would seem that you ran out of 'examples'.


Here is the kind of crap we have to put up with because of numpties wanting to defend to indefensible.

[Cope]

Oh noes gone back to the 'Little Red Book ' language, perhaps out of frustration of not being able to defend the indefensible rationally. Never mind , for a couple of hours you were able to use non hysterical language, so hope springs eternal.

The usual meaningless drivel. If you're going to project about your radical left wing apologism at least try and make it thematically relevant.

Now for the rest. Stundents excercising their own free will vote on a non-binding motion to ban three newspapers known to puff the agendas of their foreign or tax dodging owners. I literally cannot give a about this poor example , it affects no-one and doesn't tell me what I don't know, that the Sun , Express and the Mail are considered newspapers making money from reinforcing the misery of others. No further comment, as it's not interesting enough. Likewise I don't propose to discuss what happens in Canada or the US because the title of the thread is self-evident. It would seem that you ran out of 'examples'.

I don't know how many times you're going to regurgitate the same vapid argument that an authority having the power to act justifies any action it takes (a standard you only apply selectively of course). The fact that you "couldn't give a ****" about the freedom of the press or of expression or of speech is self-evident from your open alignment with any sort of authoritarian lunacy which confirms or supports your political biases.

[mongrel]

Back into evidence-free rant mode I see. I don't blame you, as James O'Brien said, the problem with people who believe that political correctness is behind all the petty evils of the world ( don't say you didn't say that) cannot actually articulate what doesn't exist. I mean suggesting that boycotting certain newspapers to you is a restriction of 'freedom of the press?' How? Is there some law that forces us to read the lies printed in the Murdoch press and other dodgy media. If their completely made-up racist and europhobic stories put off some readers, tough, it is a free market.


Here's an utterly fake headline by the Sun where a fascist from the utterly discredited group Britain First claimed that council officials told him to take off his union flag jacket. You call it press freedom, I call it lies designed to promote the idea that the state hates anything 'British' . The fact that it served the interests of a violent fascist rabble didn't matter.


https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress...ion-jack-coat/

All of your examples were poor except the one which fascinated me , because if I read it right and I think I need to dig around more, the kid may have deliberately started an argument so as to grift money from gammon.

[Cope]

Back into evidence-free rant mode I see.

That's an interesting observation coming from a person who believes that a mildly off-colour joke is the moral equivalent to the machinations of an international terrorist organization.

I don't blame you, as James O'Brien said, the problem with people who believe that political correctness is behind all the petty evils of the world ( don't say you didn't say that) cannot actually articulate what doesn't exist.

I love how you've started preempting my inevitable rebuttals of your flagrant straw men. Here's a tip: if you didn't fabricate your opponents positions we wouldn't get stuck on these tedious merry-go-rounds. That said, and as it so happens, I have already properly articulated what is meant when people complain about so-called "political correctness". You response was to angrily veer off into a bizarre, incoherent, and irrelevant diatribe about Zedong's red book in because you had no rational riposte.

I mean suggesting that boycotting certain newspapers to you is a restriction of 'freedom of the press?' How? Is there some law that forces us to read the lies printed in the Murdoch press and other dodgy media. If their completely made-up racist and europhobic stories put off some readers, tough, it is a free market

Nice try, but a voluntary boycott is different from a group of student union activists attempting to use the authority afforded them to ban the dissemination of national newspapers across the campus. Your desperate attempt to frame the incident as students merely making an open choice to avoid the Murdoch press is, as usual, laughable sophistry.

Here's an utterly fake headline by the Sun where a fascist from the utterly discredited group Britain First claimed that council officials told him to take off his union flag jacket. You call it press freedom, I call it lies designed to promote the idea that the state hates anything 'British' . The fact that it served the interests of a violent fascist rabble didn't matter.

False. I have never condoned the press repeating fabricated news stories. You've simply adopted the asinine position of arguing that the existence of false reports disproves genuine instances of speech codes (and their ramifications) being allowed to spiral out of control. This is the logical equivalent of a judiciary dismissing all the cases before it because some complainants were known to have borne false witness. Then again, I suppose its just easier for you to pretend that its all a myth than it is for you to engage with reality.

All of your examples were poor except the one which fascinated me , because if I read it right and I think I need to dig around more, the kid may have deliberately started an argument so as to grift money from gammon.

And yet you rebuked non of them. If children being victimized on account of over zealous language policing doesn't convince you that there's a case to answer it's doubtful that anything will. Then again, and by your own admission, you aren't here to converse or even to argue: you're here to soapbox and I'm just a heckler who makes too much sense for you to ignore.

[mongrel]

I see that you have replaced 'I didn't say that' to 'I have never '. Not convincing me with more content-free raging. Like James O'Brien I'm curious why or how people allow the Murdoch media ( or the equivalent) to wire their brains so that any opinion different to one's own or any sign of social progress Murdoch disagrees with as 'political correctness'. People assign their own failures to PC rather than own up to their incompetence. Others simply lack manners, and complain that their 'freedom of speeeeech' is impared when decent people object. Gender phone boy isn't a victim, as I said, in my day naughty children would get a good spanking.

Another fake PC example.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...aster-17244354

PC Chocolate makers ban ’Easter’ from eggs. CHOCOLATE firms have banned the word “Easter” from their eggs to avoid offending non-Christians…

Well bollocks. Here is the truth. There is no policy to drop the word 'Easter'.

https://www.anorak.co.uk/429277/tabl...0Y9M5iieYNAyno


If the media has to persistently lie to maintain the impression that PC exists, then it must not exist. Alternatively, if it does exist, it would be at a level where sensible people don't give a toss.