The Guardian has a stable of academics that it uses to pretend that its propaganda is academically validated. One is Cas Mudde, the man who quite by chance defined the word ‘populism’ in a very influential way in an academic article some time ago and made himself the man of that subject. Another is Jan-Werner Muller, who also writes about populism. I should probably write something about these dubious politicians soon. But, at a lower level, we have the sort-of-academics, the higher educated, the MA types, like Rebecca Solnit. These do not write out of education, but write into it: they allude to bits of expertery. Monbiotery, we could call it. Serious expression, citation of articles. Mention of laws.
Ah, I wish I wrote for the Guardian. I would be esteemed by my colleagues all over the world: envied by them, but nonetheless esteemed by them. I would be well remunerated. I would enjoy a quite spectacular feeling of being ‘in the right’. In the right, note, not right, and certainly not on the Right.
Dr Johnson said that a Scotsman must be a sound moralist who loves Truth more than Scotland. (He could have added that any Scotswoman must be a sound moralist who loves Truth more than Gender Identification.) Well in the same manner, any writer for the Guardian must be a sound moralist who prefers being right to being in the right, or prefers being in the right to being on the Left... You
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I have now read the article twice and I still have no idea what the good professor is trying to say! 🙂
Commentary: Remand, Political Pressure, and the Right to a Fair Trial
The Prime Minister’s statement of 4 August 2024, delivered in the aftermath of the Southport killings, raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns. In declaring that “individuals will be held on remand… charges will follow… and convictions will follow,” the head of government not only overstepped the proper bounds of the executive but materially prejudiced the fairness of subsequent proceedings.
1. The constitutional principle of judicial independence
In the United Kingdom, bail, remand, charging, and conviction are matters reserved to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and—above all—the courts. Ministers may set general policy but must not pre-judge individual judicial outcomes. The Prime Minister’s categorical prediction of remand and conviction amounted to an executive assertion of judicial determinations. This is constitutionally improper, because it undermines both the reality and the appearance of judicial independence.
2. Remand as coercive pressure on defendants
Pre-trial detention is not a neutral holding measure; it has profound consequences for how defendants approach their case. Empirical evidence shows that defendants held on remand are far more likely to plead guilty than those on bail, not necessarily because of guilt, but because of the pressures of… Read more »
There appears to be a simple mechanism at work. If the left do something that works they claim the credit (this situation has never been seen, btw…) If it doesn’t work they blame the right in some convoluted explanation.
“Recollections of my none existence”
If only!
The Guardian is a Students Newspaper written by people whose view of the world ended at the age of circa 20, and read by those with a similar affliction. How it survives financially is truly beyond me, does Vale Dince sponsor I wonder?
I always understood that it survived mostly on the UK govt advertising civil service jobs in it, plus the occasional bit of tax dodging.
An abysmal rag.
Written by and for morons.
It was also the source of jobs in the meeja on Thursdays, looking for more socialists to fill the ranks of the advertising industry.
Bill Gates props it up otherwise it would have soon exhausted the trust fund that keeps it going.
Well it keeps asking for donations from anyone daft enough to read it, so it can maintain “free” journalism; but I think it has some powerful sponsored/doners too, which in the spirit of free journalism I think they should name.
probably one of Soros little helpers if not the man himself!
what a sad ending for what used to be a very good newspaper when it was the Manchester Guardian.
Humans like categorising things, a person’s political view being one of them.
In reality there is a continuum from far right to far left. An individual will not, however, fit into just one slot on all topics.
For example, they oppose corporal punishment but agree with a sharp tap on the arm to alert a child to imminent danger like crossing a road without looking. It focusses the mind far more effectively than a detailed presentation of the facts followed by a debate.
So all attempts, especially by “the left” to put the “right” into a box can never be more than approximations and by definition not laws.
Well put, but it does seem that socialists are all really conservatives too. They do all they can to preserve the belief that their mad ideology is simply the only way mankind can progress whilst the Conservatives traditionally resist change unless it is necessary,
The most glaring example is the NHS, it was formed by nationalising the existing health system following the Beveredge report which was instigated during the war and enacted on commie lines by the socialists. So we are in the strange situation whereby the socialist are being conservative because the they want to preserve the system in its dysfunctional state and the conservative want to change it because it is absolutely necessary. So both are effectively being conservative but from different perspectives.
So to me that kind of proves James Alexander to be correct in his observations.
“a continuum from far right to far left” is about as useful as a one-axis graph.
Yes.
The good professor is using the word ‘law’ as if it describes a known, immutable fact of nature, which purveyors of the social sciences have done for decades. They are really just ‘observations’ of human behaviour.
Gresham’s Law is no more than an observation.
Exactly! Still trying to g to make social observation a science.
Conflating two tier with the different groups which different laws apply to does not seem to help either . Two tier is referring to the differential treatment of those supposedly in a same or similar category. So for example the generalized incitement of violence and the doing of it are all in a similar naughty category, and so should be treated within the same scale of anti naughtiness.( This will of course leave the non naughty people on the outside) But if generalized incitement quickly removed getsharder push back than actual physical violence you know there is a double standard.
Abuse of language, science and history are the basis of left wing argument. I heard a known military (yank) commentator tell a podcaster the other day, that the British deliberately engineered 33 famines when in charge of India and killed 400,000,000 people.
Odd given their population grew steadily from 130m 1800 and was 250m by 1900
There a lot of anti British propaganda going on at the moment. Principaly Jeffrey Sachs who outrightly says that every conflict in the world has British origins. Israel he says was caused by Balfour, he says the only answer is a two state solution and if you read the declaration that’s more or less what Balfour stated. He completely ignores the fact that Jews have laid claim to the land since biblical times and also ignores Genesis 16 and the fact that Jews killed many Brits when defending Palestine and of course the fact that the Americans recognised Israel and destroyed the possibility of a two state solution.
He was also talking to Yannis Varufoukis, he and Varifoukis both said that the problems in Cyprus were caused by the Brits. Again completely ignoring the fact that the Greeks and Turks have been at each others throats for centuries.
Then on the famine front a guy called Alex Krainer who is not an historian bluntly repeats that the British caused famines in India and that the moment the Brits left famines ceased. Just a cursory glance will tell you that famine was a common problem in India and across the world.… Read more »
Lord Palmerston, 19th century.
Yes, well spotted.
Ep 63. FREE SPEECH IS DEAD IN THE UK!
This week we talk about the dwindling free speech freedoms of the UK under Two-Tier-Kier’s Labour government. The Flag wars in Birmingham. The history of Master and Commander. The massacres of Christians in Africa. Culture Club and listener emails. Enjoy and PLEASE leave us a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ review!
iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-real-normal/id1528841200
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4TvMounXNnJPuycMbn3kj7?si=f52f87b1ed244547
Only YOU can help us grow – PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT THIS PODCAST!
I am sorry. No matter how worthy your podcast might be I think it is inappropriate to advertise it on multiple threads.
I respectfully disagree. There are so few of us that the comments sections are embarrassingly empty and there is always the chance that lurkers and newbies see the ad for the first time. One per thread is easily ignored. Remember that some people will happen upon just a single article here.
I agree. Anybody supporting the Sceptic point of view should be welcome here. At least these guys are having a go.
Fascist.