UKC

A day after Keir Starmer roundly handed Johnson his own backside once again in PMQs, at least three Tory MPs have shared a far-right account's video of Starmer talking about grooming gangs, doctored to make it look like he's blaming the victims (he was in fact describing the attitudes towards the victims which meant they slipped through the cracks).

Maria Caulfield, one of the three MPs has now swiftly deleted her Twitter account but Lucy "Fake Death Threat" Allan and Nadine "Do I Need To Say More" Dorries still have the posts up.

Assuming they know that a lie can be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, the damage will be done, retweeted, shared and believed thousands of times over. Does parliament need to update the Ministerial Code to make sharing of misinformation a suspension offence?

I'm touched that you think the ministerial code has any traction with this shower.

Of course, I'm being daft.

I hope Keir Starmer knows a good lawyer.

I think MP's and the media, in fact anyone in a position to influence. should be held to a higher standard than say you and me but to some extent this is human nature.  It happens all the time on UKC.  Don't mention the context, change a word very subtly here and there, add a few words and all of a sudden a text can have a totally different meaning. Add to that peoples fertile imaginations, an inability to understand plain English and good old fashioned malicious intent. That's why social media is a minefield.

I recently commented on a UKC post that involved Steve Mclure climbing the side of his house during lock down.  Despite my explicitly stating that I did not have an issue with what he did I was accused of having a go at him.  I don't know how you can prevent this but using the law to do so seems a bit OTT.

You can't legislate against stupidity and that is usually what it is on one side or the other.  It's not that often that politicians tell outright porkies.  I don't think they would last long if they did.  They are however very good at spinning and misrepresenting.

Al

I've mused on that in the past. If they've been libelled or slandered, I think most politicians have to pay for legal advice before they can even contemplate taking legal action. 

I'm sure 'the meeja' aren't unaware that if someone publishes, e.g. 'Starmer is a closet Stalinist' he might just consult himself and say, 'You know what? I think there may be a case to answer here' and take it on.  

LOL. 350M for the NHS ring any bells?

Yes Al, sharing far right propaganda is just human nature. We do it all the time, don’t we? 

Do we?  You may, I most certainly don't. Slightly right of centre I may be, far right I am emphatically not.

Al

I see you struggling to condemn a right wing MP for posting a misleading video published by a far right group. You’ve gone for a kind of “boys will be boys” defence, neither fully condemning nor fully approving. Plus thrown in a little blame onto the audience too.  
 

Co-opting the mildly right wing is how the far right progress. And yes, before you say it, the far left do the same.

are you sure? Quite apart from the red bus graphic, i could point out the "misrepresentation / lies" that BJ came out with yesterday that Starmer has called him out on and invited him to correct.

Priti patel - "just off on holiday, Theresa. See you soon".

Grant Schapps / Michael Green.

The 88% of Tory election social media posts found to be false or misleading (against 0% of labour).

David Davies - "we have done economic impact assessments"

BJ - "no, there aren't any press here"

etc etc etc

Please provide me with some detail, a specific instance perhaps.  Struggling to condemn is not really propagating though is it?  It may simply mean that at that time I was not in possession of all the facts including the source of the material. I may be commenting and taking what I see at face value at that particular moment in time.

To be clear yet again, it's getting a little tiresome, I do not condone views that most would consider far right. I often question motives which is not the same.  So if someone gets a bit hysterical about say Trump I might question that,  NOT because I'm defending Trump but rather the accusers motives i.e. they are so wrapped up in hatred of the individual and the personality that their judgement is clouded.

Al

Surely this is slander and a criminal offence for any person.

And you of course are posting this from a perfectly neutral position?

Al

So what? You can't call out lies if you have a political bent?

Of course not but one mans lie is another man's misrepresentation depending on the flavour of that "political bent" so its' always wise to view this in that context.  Like I said it's seldom an out and out downright black is white lie.

Al

I see at least two of the MPs involved have deleted their Tweets and locked their accounts. This isn't the first time they've tried this one on Starmer. You'll remember they put out an edited video before the GE which portrayed him as saying the opposite to what he actually said.

Trouble is, politicians are finding that in fact you can get away with murder and people still vote for you. Obviously Trump is right up at the cutting edge of this frontier of piss taking but in Britain we have fanatical supporters of a sex pest (liar and crook to boot) agitating for him to take over leadership of the SNP and of course we have the famous £350 million on the bus which doesn't seem to have damaged the fortunes of those who dreamed it up. A few minutes reflection would no doubt bring a few more examples to mind.

No it isn't. Truth doesn't depend on your political viewpoint. Claiming that it does is exactly what the populist right do. You know, those people you are so keen to say you don't support. 

Yes the truth is the truth.  We agree, but are you denying that people spin things and that the "truth" (note the inverted commas) cannot be presented, misrepresented, skewed and generally messed about with to make that eventual "truth" something other than it set out to be? No one is that naive surely.

Weapons of mass destruction.  Was that a truth? Was it a lie? Was it a misrepresentation? Was it a twisting of the truth to meet an agenda? Was it ignorance? Was it black and white? I suspect that your point of view depends upon your affiliations at that time.

What we are really talking about is the presentation of the truth.

Al

While it would be nice if there were some way of preventing the sharing of misinformation, I imagine it would be hard in practice because (1) The politician may not know that it's incorrect when they share it and (2) Deciding what is misinformation is itself often political.

Really? To take a couple of Ian's examples:

David Davies - "we have done economic impact assessments"

And

BJ - "no, there aren't any press here"

You're saying both those statements are actually true, but you're accusing Ian of presenting them in a bad light?

Monkeypuzzle is referring to a deliberate lie. A video was edited to make it look as if someone had said something they hadn't. Someone obviously decided to tell a lie and spent time and effort constructing it.

Politicians get away with it because people make excuses for them.

They shouldn't. They should never vote for them again.

Not specifically, I'm not treating this as a personal issue, I'm merely pointing out that we all have a tendency to present "truths" to suit our own agenda. It's a general statement NOT a personal criticism. I'm as guilty as anyone.  It's human nature we a cannot help ourselves.

I'm not familiar with Ian's specific points.  Main stream media has been unavailable to me for some time now so I'm not really qualified to discuss those specifics which is why I am not doing so.  Perhaps someone could comment on my illustration using the Iraq war.  It gives us the added benefit of hindsight.

Al

In 2020, retweeting and amplifying a clearly far-right account (How did they see the original? Were they following a far-right account?) and an obviously edited (clearly cuts him off or starts mid-sentence) video is beyond the realms of plausibly deniable. If they were thick enough to believe it to be real, then they should be sacked for not being capable of holding public office, but we know that they're not *that* thick.

At least, there should be a prominent public retraction, correction and apology from each of them. I won't hold my breath but I hope they get taken to the cleaners.

I agree with you, and I think it is despicable. In such a clear cut case it seems unlikely that the MPs did not know that they were sharing misinformation. In general however proving that someone was intentionally trying to mislead is difficult, especially as the tools for creating fake videos and photos become more sophisticated. And penalizing MPs for sharing misinformation unintentionally could be easily exploited.

In reply to Removed UserMonkeyPuzzle:

I feel like that can already be done, or is that just for advertising in social media? Misleading articles in traditional media can require retractions, perhaps misleading tweets should require retractions as well (if they don't already).

This is an example of what I mean.  I didn't accuse Ian of anything.  I asked him a question. The question mark at the end was a clue but you put your slant on it.  My wording of course suggested otherwise.  That's was me putting my slant on it. Can you see what I'm getting at now?

Al

Didn't you see the question mark at the end of my post? Can you see it now?

And main stream media has been unavailable to you? Really? Is that a lie? Or a misrepresentation of the truth?

Neither.  I do not have a TV, the village shop which is where I normally get a paper is closed during lock down and I haven't been out of the house for 8 weeks. Prior to that I was recovering from a broken ankle operation that went badly wrong, followed by two operations on my gall bladder after serious illness. I have been out of touch with the real world for just over two years which explains why I'm posting far more than I would like on UKC and at times getting a bit defensive and tetchy  That latter is a slight misrepresentation, forgive me, I got a few weeks out on my mountain bike last summer. I trust that answers your questions. How about getting back to the subject matter, shades of truth, and my illustration of it using the Iraq War. 

Al

How about rather than indulging in your whatabouttery we stick to tory MPs retweeting a far right persons misleadingly edited video.

Almost.

But genuinely couldn't find any outright lies from labour from the past 10 or so years. And yes, in many cases, these are outright "black is white" lies, not "misrepresentations" or spin.

Just read the rest of the thread properly, and i didn't feel "got at" by your comment - i took it as quite light hearted. I'm not particularly left wing, very centre polically, and would call out anyone who is dishonest. Shit happens occasionally, we all make comments that are probably not true; mostly accidental, but the current tory lot are unfortunately thoroughly, shamefully, shamelessly dishonest.

Regarding the iraq war v2, this always comes up and i would implore you to do some research on what happened in UK politics prior to us "going in".

Summary; Blair was actually reluctant, and was badgered repeatedly by iain Duncan Smith to join in the military action (if for no other reason than to curb the worst excesses of the americans). He would not order GB troops into Iraq without commons approval, which was given almost unanimously. As IDS was on the Privy Council as leader of the opposition, he had access to pretty well all the info TB had, so if you are blaming Blair for this war, you are blaming Duncan-Smith as well. Whichever party was in power would have taken us in, based on exactly the same info. And even if the WMD's were not even dreamed about, it would probably have happened anyway; the americans at least were itching for a fight.

Well for my part and as I have gone to great lengths to try and explain I do not know enough about it. If you read my comments they tend to be general rather than specific. The only special media platform I subscribe to is UKC and an air gun forum which bans political debate.

If indeed that is what is happening I join you in condemning it.

Al

Really?  I find that hard to believe but I don't really care. I was trying to make this a general discussion about the nature of truth rather than a partisan one party or another point scoring. A philosophical debate if you like.  If there are still people on here who do not get that then I'm wasting my time. The trouble is it's far too easy to get drawn in and being a bit of a "contrarian" it's sometimes hard to resist although I do remain honest at all times 

Al

In case you didn't notice they had a trial and Salmond was found not guilty.  It is absolutely disgusting that the unionist media are continually repeating allegations which were tested in court and rejected as well as their outrageous smears immediately before the trial such as putting Salmonds face in a photomontage of pedophiles, mass murderers and war criminals.   It is unbelievable the Crown Office isn't pursuing them for contempt of court but if Salmond wants to crowdfund for lawyers to sue for libel I will be contributing.   

BTW: The position of SNP leader is not vacant, Nicola Sturgeon is doing an excellent job.  If Salmond wanted to stand as an independent candidate on the list I'd certainly vote for him to kick out one of the Tories who can only get in on the list.

Which bit - Iraq war thing?

I was trying to make this a general discussion about the nature of truth rather than a partisan one party or another point scoring. A philosophical debate if you like. 

Fine by me, and i thought that's where it was heading......

If there are still people on here who do not get that then I'm wasting my time. The trouble is it's far too easy to get drawn in and being a bit of a "contrarian" it's sometimes hard to resist although I do remain honest at all times 

we could keep going with it and ignore the crossfire........   

You have gone to great lengths to try and whabouttery the subject away from several tory MPs including a minister retweeting a far right activists tweet containing a video which has been edited in such a way to be actively misleading. Its almost like you have an agenda to try and muddy the water.

Al, this thread is about a very specific incident which occured this morning. If you know nothing about it, and can't be bothered to find out what has happened, before having an opinion on it, could I respectfully suggest this isn't a conversation you should be getting invovled in? Not on any free speech ground, but because you literally do not know what is going on. You're clearly in a vulnerable position with your health and isolation and I can't see how getting a load of grief of people on here is going to make you feel any better.

As for your struggling to condemn, see my previous comment: Co-opting the mildly right wing is how the far right progress.

Co-opting the mildly right wing is how the far right progress.

So, honestly, what do you think about Nadine Dorries retweeting a doctored video? You can read the details here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52653609

OK but with regards to the Iraq war I would refer you back to my original mention of it.  What you have said is true but no one has come back to me on the salient points about the "truth" surrounding it.  I will not be defending either Blair nor IDS.  Neither will I be supporting them.  At least not for this debate. The point of the post was the nature of truth at that time. Would it be fair to say Blair lied? Did he twist the data to support his own agenda? Did he misrepresent? Did he do none of the above?

An opponent of Blair would immediately and enthusiastically say he lied. A charitable person might say he misrepresented, a supporter would say none of the above, he told it as it was. If truth is black and white as some would have it one of the above must be true and the rest must be lies.

With regard to the left telling lies:

Corbyn claimed  95 percent of us won’t have to pay any more in tax if they got into power. He was later forced to reluctantly concede that actually those receiving the marriage allowance, more than two million people, will lose it.

Al

Re Iraq - someone lied. I think Blair / IDS / the rest of Privy Council were misled by whoever came up with the WMD thing; and as a result one of our scientists committed suicide. I don't think Blair or IDS lied, as they believed what they said in parliament was true. If I tell you i drive a red car, and you tell someone else i drive a red car when in fact i drive a black one, you haven't lied, even if what you said is not true. Lying implies intention to deceive. If you continue to tell other people i drive a red car after you find out my car is black, then you become guilty of lying. 

i dont think he did twist for his agenda, as at the time, his agenda (or at least intention) was not to go to war. 

Good one about Corbyn; i remember it now - and my thought at the time was that it has to be bollocks as the only way we could afford any of his spending plans was to generally increase tax for pretty well all of us. mind you, the tory spending plans were no different; but they told different lies! Yes, what he said was deliberately and knowingly misleading; a lie.

Oh come on. You are comparing what a 'politician' (with Corbyn I use the word advisedly) thought was going to happen in the future with what politicians have actually said has happened in the past.

I don't think you get it, I really don't. In your lifetime and mine, being caught lying meant the end of your career; no ifs or buts, you were gone. It has changed so that it is being caught is something to be ashamed of, not the lying. Though I'm not sure even that is the case anymore. 

 So we have a Transport minister who, apart from trying to make money from pyramid selling, stood up in Parliament and said he didn't have another job. He did; it was faithfully recorded in Companies house. We heard David Davis say that his department had prepared an in depth document on the economic impact of Brexit. The document didn't exist. We have Matt Hancock saying 120,000 tests were carried out … the actual number was 80,000. It's endless, and it has never been seen before. And, I am afraid, you are encouraging it but not being more discriminating. 

The MPs have been "reminded of their responsibility to check the validity" of clearly doctored videos from right-wing social media accounts, so that's them told.

Starmer says there's more important things to worry about in the world than a doctored video of him. Fair enough, but I don't think there's many more important things than challenging the erosion of democracy the world over by disinformation and the willingness of mainstream politicians to indulge it when it suits them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52653609

I'd want an apology to the house or at least pinned to their social media accounts for a week.

Yes you make a valid point but your post is slightly patronising. May I respectively suggest that you keep your advice and opinions of me to yourself in future.

I haven't expressed an opinion on the specific incident until a few posts ago when I condemned it. I thought I had made it clear I was discussing the nature of truth in general.  If that's seen as a thread hi-jack I apologise to all but I'm not convinced I started it.

Al

But you are making the point I was trying to make.

Can someone please point me to when and where I defended any lie telling, either from the right or the left.

Al

no, i'm with Al on this one. He knew more than 5% of us would face a higher bill.

"It doesn't matter of its a lie or not, as long as enough people believe it".

But with Schapps; even worse, it was faithfully recorded under a pseudonym; So he lied to companies house about his name in order to try to do something he wasnt allowed to by law, and then lied to the house about having done it. He's actually come across quite well in his recent TV briefings / interviews, but whilst I watch him, i cant help think that anything he says is tainted because he is a proven liar at a level and about things that have gained others a criminal record.

Matt Hancock is just Matt Hancock.

I don't think you did. The debate widened to include examples of politicians lies and misrepresentations. Unfortunately it is rather easy to prove "the right" are far more prone to this than "the left" Or should i say "this government" as there are many examples of right wingers who are thoroughly honest and decent, several of whom recently found themselves unwelcome as members of the conservative parliamentary group.

The person with internet access saying they have no access to main stream media certainly answers my question about honesty.

Perhaps not you, I lose track but someone did.

Seankenny had a valid point. I'm probably a bit vulnerable at the moment, nothing to do with COVID I might add, so I'm going to withdraw from UKC for a while.  I'm sick and tired of feeling as if I'm on the defensive and I literally don't have the energy.

Al

Well take care, mate. If you need a rant, just PM me or one of many others. we're just harmless keyboard warriors! Including both you and I.

I don't mind robust debate but I really take exception to personal attacks and insults.  There are some sad, inadequate characters on UKC who seem to have no empathy, are incapable of reading plain English, determined to twist what ever you say and make everything an attack on an individual. It just goes to show you can be a scientist, a teacher, a lecturer,  have all the academic credentials in the world but still be as thick as two short planks.

Al

Take a break Al.

You’ll only wear yourself out doing battle with numerous posters at one time.

Once you’ve had a few days away you’ll feel much better.

There are others who have done the same so you will not be on your own.

Find a forum that reinforces the things that you believe in - I think they call it an echo chamber, it’s good to share time with like minded people. You will not change anybody’s mind in an Internet discussion so you might as well post on threads where you are not constantly under attack.

Personally I’ve signed up to the ARRSE forum.

Good luck.

😀

Its that you showed zero interest in the actual question and dived immediately into whatabouttery. Bog standard playbook of the hard right.

So you arent a fan of personal attacks and insults but its okay to call people thick?

As I've said before only in defense and retaliation.  I have NEVER initiated a personal attack on anyone and I endeavour to keep it non personal. It's a little hard to describe how I feel about all of this at the moment which is why I am retiring. I am deeply upset and I do strongly feel that I am a victim of bullying but I'm  not in the best place to handle that at the moment.

Well the debate widened it may have been me, it may not I don't recall but I have condemned this specific incident so please get your facts straight before condemning me.

By the way my wife says I'm not upset just extremely angry. She may have a point.

Al

Yes, on reflection you're right. Ironic that the saintly JC is the only left-wing politician to be caught lying - remember the train episode? - multiple times. 

How about a charge of misuse of Computers against these three - ie propagating lies using IT equipment knowing that they themselves were "prominent" people

forget libel, perhaps UKC could "lay an information" with the cybercrime unit of the NCA

just looked at the Independent and that looks as if there has indeed been a crime

"Saintly"?  I'm fairly lefty but even I was aware of his flaws

(None of which, BTW, should take us away from the question of why three MPs should think it was acceptable to spread untruths about another, and fail to apologise once they were called out on that)

That's actually one of the most successful smears against Corbyn. I had been taken in by it but it turns out that the picture used in most of the tabloids that showed apparently empty seats was a still from a video which when watched shows that the seats weren't actually empty.

https://skwawkbox.org/2016/08/23/did-corbyn-stage-traingate-clearly-not-did... 

What a surprise it is to hear that Labour's new "credible" leader is being smeared by pure lies already by right wingers aided by friends in high places.