Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......

[Connor]

So filed under "tomorrows chip wrapper" in essence? Makes sense.

That's the nuts and bolts of it, aye.

 

[Tubey]

He definitely was though.

 

[peteblue]

So, Red Ken has admitted that he kept meeting agents who he knew were not just ambassadors or the like. He also admitted to having a 10 day freebie in Russia obviously because he likes talking to journalists. Corbyn has yet to sue the Sun or the Mail or the Telegraph for libel. The deluded on here know he’s innocent because Putin or whoever says that he never did it. Fair enough......

 

[zzr45]

Seems to have rattled Corbyn, masked has slipped again as he’s decreed he’d control the press and thrown some more Soviet era rhetoric out.

This country has politicians it deserves.

 

[tsubaki]

It would be up to the Papers to prove it's true but Corbyn would have to show proof that's it's caused him reputational and or monetary harm.

They'd have three main defences: Fair comment - usually an opinion which wouldn't count here, privilege - knowing of/being subject to information and justification - similar to fair comment but a good solicitor could argue it and then the truth of the matter/is the story in public interest - see the last one.

Corbyn wouldn't chase the papers for it because it makes him look like a dictator, in a way, and leaves him 'trapped' in the sense that he'd be doing himself more reputational harm than good by chasing what he sees as a senseless story.

If, say for example, it was a more defamatory story then he'd probably chase it but it makes sense to use it as fire going forward to take on the press and push IPSO into doing real action instead of just being wheeled out every so often to so 'yeah, that's bad' or 'no, that's ok' like they do now.

They'd fold before it ever got to Court. It isn't fair comment (as you say), it isn't covered by priviledge, and it isn't true. Even the argument about the public interest defence (which is largely untested since the law changed) would almost certainly fail because they have based all these allegations on one man's word, and conspiciously not done that with other matters that would be in the public interest. Even the case that George Galloway won (which admittedly occured under the old system) against the Telegraph had more evidence than this does.

I can see why Corbyn wouldn't want the uncertainty of a Court case for defamation, but I doubt he will have any other choice if they keep repeating these statements.

 

[peteblue]

They'd fold before it ever got to Court. It isn't fair comment (as you say), it isn't covered by priviledge, and it isn't true. Even the argument about the public interest defence (which is largely untested since the law changed) would almost certainly fail because they have based all these allegations on one man's word, and conspiciously not done that with other matters that would be in the public interest. Even the case that George Galloway won (which admittedly occured under the old system) against the Telegraph had more evidence than this does.

I can see why Corbyn wouldn't want the uncertainty of a Court case for defamation, but I doubt he will have any other choice if they keep repeating these statements.

Why do you have this certainty that it isn’t true, the man has a track record of making anti British contacts..........purely for research obviously......

 

[tsubaki]

Why do you have this certainty that it isn’t true, the man has a track record of making anti British contacts..........purely for research obviously......

You should read this article.

 

[Socrates]

So a free press is vital to democracy, as long as he agrees with what they say/arent owned by rich people?

Not at all. He is supporting their right to say what they want but they will be pulled up when they lie. That sounds fair enough to me.

He is also advocating opening up the media to allow all voices to be heard. That is democracy in action.

At least that's my interpretation anyway.

 

[zzr45]

Not at all. He is supporting their right to say what they want but they will be pulled up when they lie. That sounds fair enough to me.

He is also advocating opening up the media to allow all voices to be heard. That is democracy in action.

At least that's my interpretation anyway.

The problem is the nature of the ‘truth’ though. If this was a Tory government then the F word would fly around. The government has no place in trying to control media output.

Is the media really closed? I could go and start a newspaper tomorrow no problem, wouldn’t get many readers, but the media is free.

 

[Joey66]

A you tube rant v the press is hardly the correct way to go about it!

 

[Socrates]

The problem is the nature of the ‘truth’ though. If this was a Tory government then the F word would fly around. The government has no place in trying to control media output.

Is the media really closed? I could go and start a newspaper tomorrow no problem, wouldn’t get many readers, but the media is free.

For example, 35% of all panellists on Question Time went to Oxbridge. A bit establishment don't you think?
A few more voices from the real public when discussing public issues wouldn't go amiss. Not just as a panellist on QT but in news interviews too.

And Theresa May's "Regulation of social media" sounded a tad ominous to me as well.

So, yeah. A more democratic media would be beneficial in my opinion. In terms of access for more voices especially.

 

[zzr45]

For example, 35% of all panellists on Question Time went to Oxbridge. A bit establishment don't you think?
A few more voices from the real public when discussing public issues wouldn't go amiss. Not just as a panellist on QT but in news interviews too.

And Theresa May's "Regulation of social media" sounded a tad ominous to me as well.

So, yeah. A more democratic media would be beneficial in my opinion. In terms of access for more voices especially.

This phrase ‘establishment’ is a horrible one that’s been banded around for a while and is utterly meaningless. It’s a stick to beat people with for no reason at all apart from some bizarre form of reverse snobbery. It’s a bit like saying that there’s been x amount of Asians and claiming it’s a bit, well, use your own racial epithet.

I think you’re also wilfully missing the point of the fact that a lot of these ‘establishment’ type figures tend to be experts in their fields and thus can add a lot more to any explanation of what a news story is exploring rather than the views of Joe Public could.

I think the regulation of social media again is something that can be framed however you want to. Indeed, to myself, it seems to be more about actually bringing Social Media giants in line with the rest of the media world. I couldn’t get on TV and preach hatred like people can on SM, but if I did, the TV company would be accountable. That doesn’t exist for Social Media at present.

Like I said, the media is free and open. The problem is if voices are actually entertaining (which is the real thing that drives the media) to warrant enough to be heard.

 

[peteblue]

You should read this article.

Oh I agree he probably wasn’t a spy or an agent. He was though naive in meeting these ‘diplomats’ and behaved like the useful fool that he is....

 

[Joey66]

Oh I agree he probably wasn’t a spy or an agent. He was though naive in meeting these ‘diplomats’ and behaved like the useful fool that he is....

Why did he just give a proper interview to refute, and e plain why he met this agent , and clear the air ?
Or threaten libel laws ?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Why did he just give a proper interview to refute, and e plain why he met this agent , and clear the air ?
Or threaten libel laws ?

Diplomat please Joe. We don't want GOT being sued.