Dubstepforum.com

metalboxproducts wrote: Have you ever met any of the contributer's to spiked or is your opinion based on something other then knowledge and fact?

Alright, fella

Right, put it this way, Clare Fox (RCP) who runs Spiked defended Gary Glitter for instance:

...the possessor of views that cause phone-in hosts as well as their callers to abuse her on air, as when she set about defending Gary Glitter’s right to feast on child pornography.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 802738.ece

Claire Fox is, if not the devil, then someone who holds devilishly unsettling views. In her time, she has stood up for Gary Glitter's right to download child porn, libelled ITN journalists, backed GM technology and attacked multiculturalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/no ... ment.radio

Munira Mirza (an aide of Boris Johnson) is also an editor of Spiked Magazine. What's a Tory doing working in a "left wing" magazine?

Hope that helps


You're of course free to formulate your opinion out of it but I think Spiked magazine is run by a bunch of fuckwits with some very dodgy views.

metalboxproducts wrote:Would it not be better to actually read some of what is actually written in spiked and perhaps comment on them and engage rather then trawling the internet to find some very spurious articles?

The concept that this was being blown out of proportion doesn't really need citing in an article (it's been brought up already - it's not a new idea to the conversation)... and given their pretty strong agendas, it's not really worth linking to Spiked articles - they can't really be trusted as objective, unfortunately.

Nobody was trying to dismiss the point, I don't think... just that Spiked's reasons for making it might not be entirely pure (they would very likely have problems with an IPCC enquiry for example - too much government inteference).

Magma wrote:Re: Spiked - tr0tsky's already justified his stance on them pretty well....
http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 28#1109428

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a- ... 46793.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LM_group

http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watch.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution ... (UK,_1978)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Furedi

Well, having read those 'enlightening' links, doesn't add up to anything but a 'justification' of prejudice, which is a shame, as well as actually quite shameful for someone who purports to take ideas seriously.

sang-froid wrote: Well, having read those 'enlightening' links, doesn't add up to anything but a 'justification' of prejudice, which is a shame, as well as actually quite shameful for someone who purports to take ideas seriously.

Well as much as you're free to dismiss those articles 'we' are free to dismiss Spiked articles

Firky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote: Have you ever met any of the contributer's to spiked or is your opinion based on something other then knowledge and fact?

Alright, fella

Right, put it this way, Clare Fox (RCP) who runs Spiked defended Gary Glitter for instance:

...the possessor of views that cause phone-in hosts as well as their callers to abuse her on air, as when she set about defending Gary Glitter’s right to feast on child pornography.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 802738.ece

Claire Fox is, if not the devil, then someone who holds devilishly unsettling views. In her time, she has stood up for Gary Glitter's right to download child porn, libelled ITN journalists, backed GM technology and attacked multiculturalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/no ... ment.radio

Munira Mirza (an aide of Boris Johnson) is also an editor of Spiked Magazine. What's a Tory doing working in a "left wing" magazine?

Hope that helps


You're of course free to formulate your opinion out of it but I think Spiked magazine is run by a bunch of fuckwits with some very dodgy views.

Right thanks but, you haven't enlightened me to anything i don't already know. When i suggested reading some of spiked i meant reading some the actual articles published in it. By quoting other articles you are just avoiding the issue. Oh btw Clare Fos is pretty cool actually. And please explain to me what is so bad about GM foods please.

metalboxproducts wrote: Right thanks but, you haven't enlightened me to anything i don't already know. When i suggested reading some of spiked i meant reading some the actual articles published in it.

Oh right, I get you know. I have read a few articles on Spiked over the years but to be perfectly honest with you I tend to avoid it because I don't agree with much of their politics or writing. I have read articles I do agree with on Spiked but as a rule of thumb... nah!

The Daily Mail and Telegraph is my bible

Firky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote: Right thanks but, you haven't enlightened me to anything i don't already know. When i suggested reading some of spiked i meant reading some the actual articles published in it.

Oh right, I get you know. I have read a few articles on Spiked over the years but to be perfectly honest with you I tend to avoid it because I don't agree with much of their politics or writing. I have read articles I do agree with on Spiked but as a rule of thumb... nah!

The Daily Mail and Telegraph is my bible

hahahaha

So back to their article/on topic:

- Their point had already been made on this forum.
- They seem to not understand that a good way of ensuring that "police authority is challenged" is to use this case as a catalyst for enquiries and reform movements.
- It's written horribly and comes across a bit like that time Boris Johnson had a go at scousers for being too emotional. Of course the public gets upset about stuff like this... that's human nature.
- If they had a few more brain cells, they might see that their article is actually harming their own, so-called, cause (to make the police more accountable).

So, yeah. Meh. It didn't add much to the conversation.

metalboxproducts wrote: Maybe you should read it rather then dismissing it. That might mean having to consider views that run counter to your own though so you probably wont.

Yep, I never have to consider views other than my own, not once. Especially not doing a degree in politics at university. There they'd let you write whatever the hell you want without reading any books or sources. Straight up.

It might strike you to know I get Spiked direct to my email every Friday, so I have read the article.

It might also strike you to know that I've read fuckloads of copies of Living Marxism journal (that they used to produce), and then 'LM' which is what they changed their name to.

Have you ever met any of the contributer's to spiked or is your opinion based on something other then knowledge and fact?

Yes, actually I have. And I've met people from what was the RCP, the Institute for Ideas, Modern Movement and I've also been to a good few 'Battle For Ideas' events.

But that's not the point. Each individual might be nice as a fluffy lamb but we're talking about what they publish and the organisations they represent. On that, it wouldn't make any difference if I'd met them or not, their 'public' face is what I'm criticising.

I'd tried to justify my points about the RCP else where, so perhaps jokes on me for assume people might have read the post on a different thread.

sang-froid wrote:

Magma wrote:Re: Spiked - tr0tsky's already justified his stance on them pretty well....
http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 28#1109428

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a- ... 46793.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LM_group

http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watch.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution ... (UK,_1978)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Furedi

Well, having read those 'enlightening' links, doesn't add up to anything but a 'justification' of prejudice, which is a shame, as well as actually quite shameful for someone who purports to take ideas seriously.

I'm not 'prejudiced' against a magazine, as if it were somehow a characteristic or a person.

If I said "the Daily Mail is a right-wing shiterag that's not worth the paper it's written on" it would be because a) I read it online every day and b) I know the history of the publication, it's support for the B.U.F and Mosley.

The same goes for Spiked. I read it every week, I've read it's predecessors, I know where it comes from and why they don't publish LM any more. I've met a them, been to their events and have discussed politics with them.

They've fucking lost the plot.

I hate agreeing with tankies

Firky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote: Have you ever met any of the contributer's to spiked or is your opinion based on something other then knowledge and fact?

Alright, fella

Right, put it this way, Clare Fox (RCP) who runs Spiked defended Gary Glitter for instance:

...the possessor of views that cause phone-in hosts as well as their callers to abuse her on air, as when she set about defending Gary Glitter’s right to feast on child pornography.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 802738.ece

In 'defending' Gary Glitter I suggest that she was, in fact, 'defending' his right to view images published on the web, however distasteful she or anybody else might find this. Looking at images should not, imo, be a criminal offence. Abusing children, on the other hand, is a criminal offence, and rightly so. Or do you not diiscern a difference between the two . . . ?

Claire Fox is, if not the devil, then someone who holds devilishly unsettling views. In her time, she has stood up for Gary Glitter's right to download child porn, libelled ITN journalists, backed GM technology and attacked multiculturalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/no ... ment.radio

Munira Mirza (an aide of Boris Johnson) is also an editor of Spiked Magazine. What's a Tory doing working in a "left wing" magazine?

Hope that helps


You're of course free to formulate your opinion out of it but I think Spiked magazine is run by a bunch of fuckwits with some very dodgy views.

In 'defending' Gary Glitter', I suggest that Clare Fox was defending his right (and the rights of us all, for that matter) to view images on the web, however distasteful she, or anybody else, might find such images. Looking at images should not, in my opinion, be a criminal offence. Abusing children, on the other hand, is a criminal offence, and rightly so, or do you not discern an important difference between the two . . . ?

I'm not a fucking tankie, you prat. I'm not even a trot.

sang-froid wrote:Looking at images should not, in my opinion, be a criminal offence. Abusing children, on the other hand, is a criminal offence, and rightly so, or do you not discern an important difference between the two . . . ?

The taking of the images constitute an abuse of a child and hence by looking at them, especially if it involves paying, is therefore supporting that abuse surely?

Sang, I don't really "do politics" on here because I come for the craic and music but you're being really obtuse. Yeah, everyone has the right to look at child pornography. Fuck sake... does the child being sexually abused have a choice in the matter? Think about it. If you want to support child abuse because of jaundiced liberal ideals go ahead, take that opinion out in the street.

End of discussion for me.

Wow. Never thought I'd see CP ogling defended on here...

tr0tsky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote: Maybe you should read it rather then dismissing it. That might mean having to consider views that run counter to your own though so you probably wont.

Yep, I never have to consider views other than my own, not once. Especially not doing a degree in politics at university. There they'd let you write whatever the hell you want without reading any books or sources. Straight up.

It might strike you to know I get Spiked direct to my email every Friday, so I have read the article.

It might also strike you to know that I've read fuckloads of copies of Living Marxism journal (that they used to produce), and then 'LM' which is what they changed their name to.

Have you ever met any of the contributer's to spiked or is your opinion based on something other then knowledge and fact?

Yes, actually I have. And I've met people from what was the RCP, the Institute for Ideas, Modern Movement and I've also been to a good few 'Battle For Ideas' events.

But that's not the point. Each individual might be nice as a fluffy lamb but we're talking about what they publish and the organisations they represent. On that, it wouldn't make any difference if I'd met them or not, their 'public' face is what I'm criticising.

I'd tried to justify my points about the RCP else where, so perhaps jokes on me for assume people might have read the post on a different thread.

It is rather crass for someone who is so well read to come out with

tr0tsky wrote:Asking what the heck Spiked has to do with anything.

It's crap and run by a bunch of nutjobs.

. And when you say

organisations they represent

what organisations do you mean? And in what way do they repressent them?

Firky wrote:Sang, I don't really "do politics" on here because I come for the craic and music but you're being really obtuse. Yeah, everyone has the right to look at child pornography. Fuck sake... does the child being sexually abused have a choice in the matter? Think about it. If you want to support child abuse because of jaundiced liberal ideals go ahead, take that opinion out in the street.

End of discussion for me.

No problem, wasn't much of a discussion, to be honest, if what you rmanaged to read into my post was my somehow defending the sexual abuse of children. You dork

It is rather crass for someone who is so well read to come out with

tr0tsky wrote:Asking what the heck Spiked has to do with anything.

It's crap and run by a bunch of nutjobs.

.

That's fair enough, though I have sourced wikipedia articles about them in another post. And I know wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all and I know it's lazy and I know you might not have read the post but it's a half-explanation as to why I didn't fully source and explain why I felt they're nutters.


[quote
And when you say

organisations they represent

what organisations do you mean? And in what way do they repressent them?

I mean the whole ex-RCP cabal. They've got a history of setting up front-groups, lead by the Fox-Freudi clique. Examples include Modern Movement (a group campaigning for the 3rd runway at Heathrow), the Institute of Ideas, Culture Wars journal and Spiked.

I'm a bit too busy to go through properly my criticisms of the sect but what I can do is point you in the direction of articles in (mainstream) newspapers that can give you some idea of the type of nut-jobs we're talking about here.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 53,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 53,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 54,00.html

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12 ... televised/