UKC

https://news.sky.com/story/professor-chris-witty-manhandled-by-two-men-and-...

"It is the second time this year social media footage has emerged of Professor Whitty being harassed by members of the public."

This sort of behaviour worries me ,  I wonder how old these prats are ?

I'd throw them into a pit personally .   Then tarmac it over .

Ap

Tarmac isn't especially strong. I'd suggest a nice tough concrete instead.

Good call 

;-D

Makes you wonder why he doesn’t have close protection officers with them.

It’s happened before and sadly it will probably happen again.

Given his profile and with reference to the goings on in Belgium, you would think that he might be afforded at least the same level of protection as a Cabinet Minister. At least temporarily.

Not a pleasant experience for anybody, but potentially additionally so for Whitty given what happen ed to his father.

I'd never heard about that .

Unpleasant to say the least .

The police attended apparently, I'm not sure why nobody was arrested?

Not sure I'd go that far.  A response somewhere in between speaking to them and taking their names - which is what the cops actually did - and throwing them in a pit would seem appropriate.

Such behaviour is indeed worrying. Selfie videoing of such behaviour, even more so.

As long as unmediated platforms to post this kind of crap exist, harassment of public figures will unfortunately be commonplace.

What if they were Tory voters, Tom? 

I feel it is more in the publics interest to protect Dr Whitty over the entire cabinet

Yep ,  the bunch of ministerial toerags that lie constantly get protection,   while the guy telling it according to science gets bullied in the streets.

Such standards we allow .

They probably are if they vote at all.

This is the kind of footage that you pray ends in Chris Witty taking them all out with one inch punches. 

In the absence of such a happy ending, I sincerely hope those knob heads all get really bad gonorrhoea.

Sadly it's another reason the competent, educated, able, talented etc..  will stay far away from politics.

The longer restrictions are in place, the more animosity will build up towards those who are recommending and imposing said restrictions. On a personal level I don't want to see anyone accosted in the street, but I can't say I'm shocked this happened.

People do feel very disempowered by the ongoing impositions placed upon them. Doing that to people, even if it is justified, comes at a cost.

In reply to AllanMac:

Harassment of public figures was occurring long before the advent of video recordings. I suppose if some questionably benevolent central power was able to have complete control over our information streams that'd be preferable in your eyes? Sounds worrying to me.

What restrictions are these? Pubs are open, shops are open, restaurants are open, gyms are open, schools are open. You might need proof of a negative test to attend a footy match or something but we are pretty much back to normal.

(Foreign travel is more difficult, I will allow, and self isolating is a ball ache if you're unlucky enough to have a close contact with covid)

Harassment of public figures was occurring long before the advent of video recordings. I suppose if some questionably benevolent central power was able to have complete control over our information streams that'd be preferable in your eyes? Sounds worrying to me.

Maybe so, but the information streams we have now are by several orders of magnitude, more instant and far reaching. Any justice for wrongdoing, whether by public shaming or legislation, cannot keep up with its viral immediacy. The damage has long since been done before preventative measures can even get started, and in the meantime public servants like Chris Whitty will continue to be bullied. Neither can he defend himself, because he is being filmed.

Why are you worried? Did it worry you when Trump's inciting of violence was gagged by social media platforms? In the absence of intervention either internally or externally, how else would you prevent people like these behaving like utter tw*ts? Who do you consider to be the arbiter of civilised behaviour if people are unwilling/unable to self mediate? Is the public bullying of respectable figures like CW fair game to you?

People being silenced by powerful unelected powers is worrying across the board, no matter the context. Why are you not worried?

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. They acted like tw*ts and happened to post it on social media, it's not the fact that social media allows video postings that caused them to act like tw*ts.

I was quite clear I didn't think him being accosted was on, just that I'm not surprised. Are you not more angry at the guys that did this because you can see footage of the harassment happening? If it was just a text article saying "Chris Whitty was harassed by two guys in the street" I wouldn't have as much empathy as I do seeing that video and how distressed he looks. How would this being deleted or censored help our understanding of the situation? I'm only seeing this because corporate media outlets have taken this off of social media and spread the information to me, so they are no better are they?

Not social media conglomerates. Police seems logical.

"schools are open"

Many are not, 375k pupils at home and the # is growing rapidly.

Both of mine (primary) are at home for two weeks and their entire years (60 kids) regardless of if they have it or not are not allowed to leave their houses.

So not really back to normal/no restrictions

I suspect that even when we are back to "no restrictions" after Jul 19th, we will still have to isolate if we have a positive test or we're a direct contact of someone with a positive test result.

This is because Covid will (almost certainly) remain a notifiable disease (if I've remembered this correctly). The "no restrictions" will only mean all businesses open and no "gathering" restrictions.

If your children were being aggressively harassed at a school that is well known for gratuitous bullying, who would you blame - the bullies, or the school for allowing it to continue? 

Agreed.....hence lots of 'free' people will quickly not been so free as imagine case # will increase signficantly

I worry that people will stop testing/following isolation guidance if the messaging is "back to normal"......though if we have broken the link between hospitalisation/deaths then argument of why do you need issolation periods.

No tarmac.

Same pit, but with petrol in the bottom.

Chuck them in, then light blue touchpaper and throw it in after them.

Not only do these sh1ts need dealing with, but whoever else is either prompting them or working with them, to prevent any recurrences.

The bullies every time. It is actually very difficult to wipe out bullying in a school and any school that claims there is no bullying within its wall is probably run by liars. 

On the other hand, not being a bully yourself is a fairly easy life choice which most of us manage to achieve fairly successfully. 

People should take responsibility for their own behaviour rather than falling back on " I only, did it because the system allowed me to do so."

Yes, the bullies of course - but if such behaviour is allowed to fester for a long time and on a collective scale, it tends to become increasingly ingrained in the subculture of the particular institution, whether that is school or social media. If it somehow becomes 'cool' to bully others, the problem feeds on itself. And the longer it goes on, the more unmanageable it will get - and more draconian the countermeasures would have to be at the institutional level as well as the perpetrator level, in order to stamp it out. 

There's a significant difference between silenced and not amplified. 

Jk

The problem is not people being silenced it is quite the opposite.  The problem is stupid people like these neds being manipulated by the three four or five billionaires who own most of the UK news.  The Tories are in these press baron' pocket and the BBC is in the Tories' pocket.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2021/02/four-men-own-britain-s-news-media-prob...

This 'freedom' talk has f*ck all to do with freedom, it is billionaires who own commercial property and newspapers wanting to get the advertising money flowing again and their office buildings full and using their newspapers to manipulate opinion in their economic interests.  They are amplifying bullsh*t theories and mocking scientists because acting rationally based on science will cost them money.

OK. But the BBC, Sky, Guardian etc have all shared this video. So they are complicit in this amplification. What consequence should they suffer?

I have total disdain for all corporate media, not just the right wing side of it which seems to be your primary focus. How would advocating against my own ability to access information hurt these evil billionaires exactly? There are powerful people on both sides manipulating us constantly, I can't believe you can only see this happening on one side of the aisle.

There are powerful people on both sides manipulating us constantly, I can't believe you can only see this happening on one side of the aisle.

On the one hand we have billionaires who run the media, and the agenda through "think tanks" to promote their ideas (which usually boils down to "stop the government regulating something, so I can make more money")

I'm not sure who, exactly, is on the other side, could you tell me?

You're referring to the billionaires running all media (all corporate press, new media, social media platforms etc)? Or do you mean a specific part of one section of the media? 

I'm asking for you to put forward some names of billionaires who either own media outlets directly, or who seek to swing the weight of public opinion behind greater regulation of their activities. 

Widening the focus slightly, I can think of Bill Gates and George Soros who have "broken ranks" to some degree with their billionaire buddies and funnily enough end up being on the receiving end of some nasty online smear campaigning...

Not sure alot of people know what happened to his father.

But for those not in the know, his father headed up the British Council in Athens and was killed by terrorists in what is now thought of as a mistaken identity case. It was a pretty brutal murder( shot whilst driving his car) .Chris Whitty was about 9 years old at the time.

To be clear, I said powerful people not billionaires. I don't think billionaires who directly own outdated and increasingly irrelevant corporate media outlets have a monopoly on influencing and pushing agendas. However, it's pretty clear big tech has their own sent of agendas, political beliefs, end goals that aren't altogether conducive to a happy and free society in my view. That isn't the topic though is it?

My point was that I fail to see what having a dubiously trustworthy third party moderator effectively censoring/altering my information feeds would have done to help this particular situation when the corporate press amplified the incident anyway. Everyone seems to have filled in the gaps with their own political bugbears rather than addressing the point. 

Indeed, they're not the only side of the equation, are they?

For example, there's been quite the orchestrated effort to push consistent misinformation and propaganda through social media these days.  It's really stood out to me with the efforts to downplay the severity of this pandemic through attractive dismissals of its seriousness that are based on utterly flawed comparisons to non-pandemic sources of illness and death.

And my point is that there isn't 2 equal sides battling for my support, there's a spectrum, but it's all coming from 1 direction. Basically those pushing a deregulated, small state, low tax, devil take the hindmost, screw the weak, and never mind about the planet direction.

Are the BBC et al celebrating it or condemning it?

In so much as any thought went into it, it was created to be shared with like minded scum, to bolster the standing of the scum featured among their scummy extremist peers. That isn't what's happening when it's reported as news, the opposite happens, they're being called on their behaviour, shamed and their peers who cheered it are too, a light is shone into their nasty little online pond.

This is the absolute opposite of what happens when it's posted into an unregulated echo chamber.

I'm curious, would you be here defending the right of say an Islamist to his controversial online 'free speech'? I could respect a true free speech for all position while having reservations but don't recall it happening previously.

jk

Kenneth Whitty was the Cultural Attaché and it happened in 1984, so Chris Whitty would have been about 17 or 18.

Condemning, but I want to be able see this video. Without the video I wouldn't have understood the fear Whitty had in that situation to the correct degree. I wouldn't have seen it if the perpetrators didn't film it. So paradoxically it's the perpetrators that have most helped me see why this is a problem.

It's a deep question, my default is free speech absolutism but I'm sure we could haggle about the exceptions here and there, protection of children for example. It's for me to decide whether Mr. Islamist has a point or not, I don't want or need someone to come along and make that decision on my behalf. Do you feel you'd be joining ISIS tomorrow if it weren't for being protected from their rhetoric? Must you not afford others the same degree of agency you would want afforded to yourself? If not how do you separate people who are worthy/unworthy and is it correct/moral/just to do that?

I don't think it's right to give over our agency for information processing and decision making to an intermediary, lest we drop the pretense of living in democracy altogether. If people want a society run by a dictatorial wise council of philosopher kings, high scientists or advance AI be clear about that, otherwise you need free information flow to the people.

No it isn't coming from one direction, it's coming from all directions but your only seeing the side that opposes yours as the problem. Have you considered those on your current 'side' have a stake in portraying gross asymmetry of power against them? Playing the victim is common strategy. After considering all options over many years I now fall more on the small state/low tax side of the debate, does this mean I must be a brainwashed puppet of the billionaire capitalists' looking to rape the earth? Feels a bit strawmanny and low resolution to me.

Regardless of politics, this was plain old bullying.  I wonder if those lads would have been as keen to take the piss with someone like John Prescott in his heyday.  I regard all politicians as pondlife tbh and couldn't give a toss about them but this guy has done nothing other than serve the public as best he can through a very difficult time.  Its quite obvious he is not in a position to tell them where to go.

I am surprised these lads haven't been outted already and given a good pasting by people who dont appreciate bullies.

But that's the thing; Chris Whitty is not imposing restrictions on anyone. He is an advisor, not a minister. As Thatcher said, "advisors advise, and ministers decide". The government impose the restrictions. It's baffling how many people fail to understand this.

In my opinion, this kind of behaviour is a direct consequence of the government hiding behind their own advisors because they (the government) are too cowardly to own their decisions. If it all goes wrong or people don't like it, they were "following the science", and they are not responsible for the science - that's Chris Whitty, who we've put on the telly loads so everyone knows who he is and can blame him.

Cretins like Duncan Smith don’t help, in a civilised society, he would be ignored as the feeble minded crank that he is.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-boris-johnson-accused-by-ex-tory-lea...

Agreed, but anyone sufficiently irked by the restrictions are liable to put him in the category of 'those responsible'. It's likely easier to get at him than at the PM or cabinet members themselves.

Again I agree with you. Pretending this is all about 'the science' of covid and using that as a replacement for proper leadership is ludicrous in a complex and dynamic, worldwide system of billions of interconnected humans with myriad other needs. The science can inform, but it is poor substitute for actual leadership.

Where are the mass media outlets that support my worldview? The BBC is now headed by Tory donors and prior to that had lost the plot with constantly placing "balanced" ahead of "factual", C4  (possibly) but, the Tories want to sell it off, so it can become another mouthpiece for oligarchy beholden to the paymaster. Nearly all mass circulation papers are either Tory sympathisers or places where opinions are treated with the same gravitas as facts, or both. 

The SWP rag handed out at various stands around the UK sounds potentially up your alley.  Possibly not mass media, but if you are going to view the BBC's output as Tory, despite its staff being overwhelmingly left-of-centre, you might struggle to find anywhere that supports your worldview.

Interesting. My worldview is that capitalism is here to stay, at least until the climate apocalypse causes the end of civilization. That being the case what we need to do is to regulate capitalism to the extent that it benefits everyone rather than just Jeff Bezos. I have no problem with wealth, or the concept of ownership. Privilege I'm less keen on. I don't think the SWP is going to be getting my vote any time soon.

Because you're making an argument that only notices the concept of "being silenced" when the people "being silenced" are those with whom you share some kind of in-group sympathy.

There is no such thing as a society where every voice is equally audible, and equally respected, and nor should there be. When people who've had the mic for a long time get it turned down, they get all pissy about it, and I ignore it, because their whining sounds to me like fingernails down a blackboard.

That's why I'm not worried. People I've had to listen to my entire life, who were full of shit on the day I was born, and who are full of shit now, sometimes get their microphone turned down a little bit. And then they throw their toys out. Their hurt feelings driving their temper tantrums are not my concern - they simply need to grow up.

I am consistantly amazed that right wingers continue to portray the BBC as a left wing organisation despite all evidence to the contrary. I suppose telling people not to vote for JC (as I heard with my own ears) wasn't really right wing enough.

Both are 24 with one of them being a former estate agent from Romford. The former being due to his boss not being overly impressed by the video.

https://news.sky.com/story/professor-chris-whitty-man-filmed-harassing-chie...

"

Insisting there was "no malicious intent" behind his actions, which have seen him lose his job, he claimed he was trying to get a selfie with the medic to show to his mother.

His friend Jonathan Chew, who also appears in the clip, spoke to the newspaper, saying: "We just wanted a selfie".

He "JUST WANTED A SELFIE"  WTF!!!

I just want lots of things , I don't go out and just take them regardless of peoples objections.

Children dressed at adults as usual.

To some people, everything that isn't fluorescent pink and continually rabidly frothing about The Wokes is left wing.

The misinformation and propaganda lately has gone mental. Yesterday I had to block yet another friend, something unheard of for me before this pandemic. Not for disagreeing with me, that's fine I'm happy to disagree, but for bombarding me with rants and masses of conspiracy junk which then attracted other nutjobs like flies to a corpse. When you have people who don't trust the media posting slanted takes on a Guardian article (43% of all people who died of COVID had two vaccine jabs) and proudly proclaim they don't trust experts, then I am on a hiding to nothing trying to argue my point because it enevitably slides into a rant about how I am murdering children by vaccine shedding or something. At least Bill Gates has the decency to let me quietly get on with my life while he takes over the world.

So on one side we have billionares controlling the media and on the otherside we have trial by social chaos where every opinion is not only valid but those that can beat down their opponents by whatever means necessary take centre stage.

UKC is a bastion of reason compared with the likes of FB and Twitter

just as a side note, I have arrived at the mindset that blocking a person (say, on Facebook) does not necessarily mean that you’ve fallen out with them massively etc. It can mean merely that (as in your case, seemingly) you want to block out their incessant social media drivel. Once I realised this, I was happy to block a number of people that I’d still be happy to engage with in person. It was quite liberating (and strangely inspired by a distant acquaintance blocking me for quite reasonably calling him out on some virtue-signalling drivel he’d posted. I didn’t feel slighted, I just thought “oh well he wants to be in a happy clappy echo chamber where everyone just agrees with him, and if that’s how he wants to use a group on social media, who am I to spoil his delusions?”). 

Has anyone commenting on how these thugs should face their end actually seen the video. Ok, they sound like tools and maybe drunk or under the influence, and they do get into his personal space and he looks uncomfortable with this, but there's no violence, they don't threaten him and they aren't unhinged antivax nutters.

So suggesting they are buried alive or burnt to death is pretty out of order. Straight out of the daily mail comments section.

No clue who or what you are referring to anymore. I don't want anyone silenced, I've had my mind changed before, and very likely to have it changed again. If I advocate to have people 'turned down' or off entirely, then anything I have say has no protection either going forward. I can't very well know if a given position is tenable if I can't hear the unfiltered opposition to it can I?

If two physically capable adult males were to act in such a manner to you, you might change your mind as to whether you might feel threatened. The person who knows how much threatening was felt is Professor Whitty, and not you. Furthermore the Police would not have got involved if it was just a "jolly jape".

If such THREATENING BEHAVIOUR is not stamped out immediately, then it will become the norm. This is currently the case in the USA, and is not something we want in this "green and pleasant land". If those who think behaviour against Whitty is OK to carry out know that those opposed to it are quite prepared (if necessary) to return violence with violence, then they will be a heck of a lot less inclined to start the violence.

Address what gethin_allen actually said. Suggesting people are burnt alive (medieval capital punishment) for harassing someone in the street once is obviously disproportionate and insane. No-one is defending the actions of the guys who did this, but you can't claim some moral high ground while saying 'burn the bastards' in the next sentence.

Again taking a moral high ground, then immediately threatening retaliatory vigilante violence in the same sentence. Bizarre. 

"All evidence to the contrary"? Telling people not to vote for Jeremy Corbyn means the BBC is right-wing?  But I'm interested; who said it, when, about what, and how often?

Most people seem to view the BBC as largely impartial, despite it appearing to be no different from most media and being staffed by left-wingers (from comments of conservative staff to the internal circulation of the Guardian).  The claims here seem to be that it is rabidly pro-Tory.  Seems the left can't identify their own bias.

<reference needed>
 

ive seen people on this thread rebut the contention that the BBC has an intrinsic left wing bias; but no one actually claim it is right wing.

it’s not a monolithic organisation. The comedy output may be skewed to the left, that may be in part because “right wing comedian” comes with baggage; but the news and politics output is not institutionally leftist. Senior politics editors lean right (kuenssberg, Robinson). Overall I could cite grievances, but compared to print media it’s like the platonic ideal of “impartiality” made real. 
 

and “no different to most media”- it’s certainly different to print media in the U.K. ; that may make it appear left wing in comparison, but only because the Overton Window in print media is shifted so far right

You were saying we should all be worried about people being silenced, as I quoted.

It isn't clear who *you* were saying was being silenced, so it's a pretty pointless discussion. If you reread my post you'll see that I am not saying that *you* approve of anyone being silenced, I'm just saying that your free speech absolutism is incoherent nonsense.

And the police who spoke to him said "when officers spoke to Prof Whitty, he had not suffered any injuries and told them at the time that he did not wish to make any allegations"

Furthermore the Police would not have got involved if it was just a "jolly jape".

If you look at the video the incident occurred right in front of a police van so it wouldn't take much for them to get out and see what was going on.

I can't predict the future and don't know much about the situation in the USA (do you? really?) but your argument certainly makes a good case for setting them on fire and then burying them alive then.

As I say, it wasn't big, it wasn't clever, the pair involved were certainly in the wrong and it wasn't a pleasant experience for Prof. Whitty. This is undeniable but doesn't warrant the language and threats from keyboard warriors on this forum.

You actually have to read the posts I was responding to to get the context, not go on solipsistic rants and filling in the gaps in your comprehension with your own assumptions about what is being said.

AllanMac was suggesting the video of the incident should have been removed altogether, I was arguing it shouldn't have been: 

"Such behaviour is indeed worrying. Selfie videoing of such behaviour, even more so.

As long as unmediated platforms to post this kind of crap exist, harassment of public figures will unfortunately be commonplace."

Social media censors should have removed this video in his view, I disagreed as seeing the incident helps understand exactly what happened and incriminate those responsible (guy lost his job over it, which wouldn't have happened with no evidence to tie him to it, plus empathising more with Whitty after seeing the footage).

Your welcome to say freedom of information and speech is nonsense, just don't mistake that for a coherent argument against it. 

Sure, in this case, there are arguments for and against the video being taken down from SM. You then went on to use absolutist freedom of speech as a general principle to justify your view. 

But absolute freedom of speech isn't a sensible position, it's nonsense. 

Well, I might find time to explain the reasons it's drivel later on. Until then, I accept that I haven't made the case. 

Your position is nonsense. Is this considered constructive discussion in 2021?

Very generous of you, please don't feel obligated though.

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Since the turn of the Century, persistent claims of pro-left coverage have been interspersed with accusations of ‘establishment’ coverage, which has lead to greater airtime for the Conservatives.  Back in 2012, a study from Cardiff University, found that appearances by the then Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron outnumbered those of then Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, by a ratio of over three to one (53 to 15).

But as you say...

Those on the right of the political spectrum often highlight the liberal career histories of BBC staff members. In 2014, the position of Newsnight’s new economics correspondent was offered to Duncan Weldon, whose previous positions included senior economist at the Trade Union Congress and advisor to the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Harriet Harman. This decision sparked complaints from the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen.

However...

Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

And you asked about Corbyn...

In the run up to the 2019 General Election, the BBC political editor, Laura Kuenssberg was also accused of unfair coverage towards the then Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. At Labour’s 2019 General Election manifesto launch, Kuenssberg was booed as she rose to ask a question.

It seems to me that whoever you are you will find the BBC biased purely out of habit, like a nervous tick.

It seems the right nor the left can identify their own bias

You can consider it whatever you like. I don't think you know what my position is.

My position is that the when I hear the phrase "freedom of speech" used in the context of current politics, I can be almost completely sure that what I'm listening to is an absolute crock of shit. Because I think that what's meant in the current context by "freedom of speech" is a hijack of a very worthwhile concept by people who feel alienated because their socially conservative views have begun to collide with the ethical norms that our society, such as our workplaces and public institutions, now abide by. When you're out of line with the ethical norms of the society you live in you are ostracised, and no one likes to be ostracised.

If I were to say sincerely, "I believe that freedom of speech is important" what I would mean is "I believe it is important that governments cannot suppress information in order to further their own interests". Corrupt governments suppress information by threatening, abusing, or locking up journalists and protestors who disagree with their actions. In this context, I believe very strongly that freedom of speech is important.

However, when the people I converse with on this website say that "freedom of speech is important" they seem to mean something like, "people should be able to post whatever they like on mainstream social media without it being taken down, and without facing any consequences in their personal and professional lives".

I think this is stupid. Why should any private business be obliged to publish content it sees as obnoxious? Why would it be good for the modern media to have absolutely no system for regulating the quality and veracity of information people get about the world? We know exactly what the consequences are of allowing the explosion of untreated sewerage that facebook and twitter pump out for ad revenue. We've found out that thanks to the "free marketplace of ideas" enabled by social media, an awfully large number of people believe that Trump won the US election (and that he was fighting an international cannibalistic paedophile ring). This is not a good outcome, is it?

When, for example, Toby Young says he is "fighting for freedom of speech" he doesn't mean he's making sure that information cannot be supressed by governments to keep themselves installed in power. He means he's fighting so that disgusting pieces of shit like him don't have to face the consequences of the lies and bigotry they pump out in the media. Associating this entirely venal enterprise with the defence of brave journalists who've been jailed and abused by corrupt regimes makes me feel sick.

But of course, some people fall for it hook line and sinker. Particularly if their own socially conservative views towards minorities have fallen out of favour with the society that surrounds them, and they feel vulnerable that they'll face some sort of sanction for the poisonous crap they post on twitter and facebook themselves.

Only worthwhile thing you stated. Just add 'supra-national corporations' to list of powerful entities that should not have power to suppress information and we can agree.

The rest is politically lopsided waffle. Clearly you have a set view and you're welcome to it.

There are some categories of information which govts and supra-national corporations can legitimately withhold (the current whereabouts of their spies for example)

But Jon is not ranting about information, but about publishing opinions, which go on to have negative real world consequences ranging from casual racism or homophobia right up to mob violence.

This is probably the best analysis of Freedom of speech I have read. I applaud you

Agreed, Duncan. Certainly one of the very best posts I've seen on UKC for a long while.

https://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-with-assaulting-professor-chris-whit...

"Following an incident in St James's Park last Sunday in which England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty was accosted, Lewis Hughes, 23, has been charged with common assault and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday 30 July."

Excellent .

AP

Let's hope he is fairly hung, drawn and quartered for his heinous and unforgiveable crimes against us all.

"Officers subsequently reviewed video footage which emerged after the incident and the matter was referred to the Public Order Crime Team. Enquiries continue."

So not having the video 'mediated' by our social media overlords directly contributed evidence to the lawful authorities to get the outcome everyone wanted? I rest my case.

I hope he gets 30 days in prison, where he might find he gets the same treatment from some of the inmates that he gave out.

Whatever happens, the result will send out a message to potential thugs. I just hope it's a message that deters rather than encourages them.

An immature, self-publicist show-off gets his thoroughly deserved comeuppance. I'd have a beer to celebrate if I had one in the fridge. Whitty could have kneed the scrote in the groin but he has more class.