We have Andrew Neil here - a BBC employee no less, being very sceptical about climate change. The Sunday Politics show was widely criticised here for promoting climate scepticism. No evidence that I can see of the BBC toeing any line.
Andrew Neil on Ed Davey climate change interview critics - BBC News
Indeed. I love him, but Brillo can't help betray his Tory right background, whereas fellow Tories Paxo and Robinson mostly stayed impartial.
Would a 2013 product be covered/influenced by the Lobbying Act 2014?
I think the assertion about the lobbying act and the climate change debate being examples of a lack of free spech were seperate examples. Not sure but thats how i read it (well I had to read it a few times before i got the what i hope was the meaning)
There has never been such a thing as free speech, there isn't now, there never will be. If you want to make a comment without being prepared to stand by and be accountable for your comment. Then don't make it.
I was going to say he was dangerously close to that, but was concerned about derailing the thread via Godwin's Law , but you've now confirmed what I honestly feel about him.
Sad that his important achievements have now been overshadowed by this, but I suppose I wasn't all that reverential after The Double Helix left a bad taste in my mouth when I first read it during A Level Biology around 88/89.
Would be nice if that was the case!
But it is clearly not. You can have an opinion and if it is right of current PC, then you are pilloried for it. You could be right or wrong!.
Just look at the example of Tom Jones. He had come from a close knit mining village and arrived in London. He saw that many people in the entertainment business were homosexual, which (apart from being illegal) was something he wasn't at all familiar or comfortable with. He said if London was like this he wanted to go back home.
Now that is a purely factual account of what happenedhalf a century ago. But there was a Twitter storm about Mr Jones being Homophobic. In 2015, given his time in the business, that is most unlikely. But why should people be so keen to condemn, knowing it was a historical account ?
It could be therefore said that at the time he was homophobic.
However with saying that I think the attitudes of the time should be examined and possibly pilloried and not the individual.
Of course... not just attitudes but the law, to the extent you could go to prison...
But HE was pilloried because he told it as it was in the 1960s.
Hence, my comment to simm667- He could easily back it up with historical documents, the law at the time, film, you name it. But because he recounted a short story from his first experiences in London, he was condemned as being a homophobic person, now.
This underlines the thread title that you have to be very careful what you say even if its 100% accurate because it might not fit the current 'correct' thinking.
Another question is who "is opinion and free speech" not tolerated by, and why do we allow them to set the agenda ?
Its a rhetorical question not looking for lots of replies about liberal press, BBC etc