A right-wing TV pundit had his arse handed to him when he tried to invoke the Tory tactic of ‘divide and rule’ to turn viewer opinion against people who have travelled to the UK in search of asylum.
Grace Blakeley, one of the UK’s brighter political commentators, pointed out exactly why his argument is utter rubbish, as highlighted by Maximilien Robespierre here:
Yes: if the issue is our treatment of Johnny and Janey Foreigner, the right-wingers tell us they are our enemy; but if the issue is accommodation of working-class people, they tell middle-class people that the workers are the baddies.
They always “other” the people who have the least. In fact, in most cases, fault lies with those who have the most. How did they get all that wealth and why are they hoarding it?
Keep the link to this clip handy; you can use it if you identify further attempts to use this false argument.
Kate Winslet: accepting her BAFTA for I Am Ruth, she pleaded for legislation to tackle the online abuses to which young people are subjected. But what good will any law do, if judges refuse to acknowledge the methods of online abuse?
When Kate Winslet won a BAFTA for I Am Ruth, she pleaded for legislation to battle the online harms to which young people are now constantly subjected.
It was a powerful speech, and the panellists on the BBC’s Politics Live on May 15 (Danny Kruger, Shami Chakrabarti, Alastair Campbell and ConservativeHome’s Henry Hill) discussed what could be done. You can hear their salient points here:
But is it possible to legislate against the tactics that are used to mentally and emotionally attack young people? Would the courts even recognise such methods if a case reached them?
I don’t think so, based on my experience in Rachel Riley’s libel case against me.
I put forward evidence about several different forms of abuse that are commonly used in the social media but the judge refused to recognise any of them.
That was her prerogative, and I’m sure she had her reasons.
But it sets a precedent that means it may now be much harder for anybody trying to win a case under forthcoming “online harms” laws to succeed.
Actions have consequences. I fear the consequences for young people in this age of anti-social media may be severe.
I will try to make our MPs aware of my concerns. It would be welcome if you would do the same.
In the meantime, I am still trying to raise money to pay my legal team, whose members were also concerned about the effect of online abuse on young people.
Please – and only if you are able to spare it – donate to my CrowdJustice fund, or contribute in any of the following ways:
Make a donation via the CrowdJustice page. Keep donating regularly until you see the total pass the amount I need.
Email your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.
Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.
And don’t forget that if you’re having trouble, or simply don’t like donating via CrowdJustice, you can always donate direct to me via the Vox Political PayPal button, where it appears on that website. But please remember to include a message telling me it’s for the crowdfund!
Online harm continues to be an urgent, current issue and my court case was all about that.
It is possible that my actions in defence of a vulnerable teenager may eventually be vindicated, whether a High Court judge approves of them or not.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
How many more campaign tactics will go horribly – or if you like, hilariously – wrong for the Conservatives?
Today, the Tories wanted to attack Labour with a Twitter hashtag. As Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls appeared on radio and TV programmes this morning, the Tories’ Carrie Symonds tweeted, “When Labour were in power they DOUBLED Council Tax. Now it appears Ed Balls plans to RAISE Council Tax again. #SameOldLabour”.
The main Tory Twitter account joined in, with “Here’s how Labour’s last approach to ‘budget responsibility’ turned out #SameOldLabour #BacktoBankruptcy.” This one added a photograph of the famous “no money” letter written by former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne.
Perhaps this is what turned the mood of the tweeting nation. We’re all sick and tired of the Tories using that letter against Labour. It was meant in jest and it may have been a gross breach of protocol by the Tories to publicise what it said – not to mention being in very poor taste.
Suddenly, Labour Policies started tweeting positive Labour policies with the #SameOldLabour hashtag. For example: “On 1 April 2013, the Tories introduced the Bedroom Tax. On 8 May 2015, Labour’s Rachel Reeves, if elected, will 100% scrap it #SameOldLabour.”
This is a war of words that Labour is definitely winning – to Alistair Campbell’s joy: “Hope the Tory bright spark who came up with #SameOldLabour isn’t on performance related pay. Another @LyntonKCrosby campaign own goal,” he tweeted.
Of particular pleasure to This Writer is the following, very-much-retweeted commentary on the #SameOldLabour hashtag and its use by the Tories:
Let’s have just one more, that This Writer created especially for this article:
If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Whose idea was it to buy thousands of Twitter followers for Owen Jones, in imitation of the tactic for which David Cameron was recently shown up?
Under the headline David Cameron has tens of thousands of Twitter followers who DON’T EXIST, yesterday’s (February 12) Daily Mirror told us: “David Cameron, who famously claimed “too many tweets make a t***”, faces Twitter shame as tens of thousands of his followers don’t exist.
“The Tory leader has 915,000 followers on the social network, which he joined five years ago.
“But media experts say 15% were ghost accounts – meaning about 137,000 of his Twitter friends are imaginary, while another 393,000 of his followers are deemed “inactive”.
“Celebs have previously been exposed for buying followers to boost their numbers, with online eBay scams arranging for 100,000 fake followers to flock to an account for just £25.”
Now let’s look at what happened to Owen Jones today.
Vox Political is not close to Mr Jones. The Chavs and The Establishment author has not acknowledged this blog’s existence and he never responds to our tweets. He does, however, strike this writer as an honourable person, so when he tweeted
there was every reason to believe him.
Then, today (Feb 13), this happens:
You see, this turned up on the pro-Tory Guido Fawkes blog today:
What’s going on?
It seems clear that some Tory got wind that their leader’s fake followers were going to be outed in the media, so they started buying followers for a prominent Leftie instead, so they could point at him and say: “Look! Look! Those Labour boys are just as bad!”
How sad for them that Owen twigged what was going on, but in any case, two wrongs don’t make a right and some might say a British Prime Minister buying followers to make himself look popular is a lot “wronger” than anything a Leftie journo might do.
In any case, we know that Owen didn’t buy his fake followers.
Perhaps Guido would care to own up and tell us what the game is? How about it, Mr (real name) Staines?
If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
