Freedom of speech

Bercow and impartiality - as I said before, the point is he is meant to speak for parliament, not just himself. That's his constitutional duty. He clearly knew there would be many MPs who wouldn't support what he said. He should have kept quiet unless specifically asked to invite Trump, and then taken the view of MPs.

Presumably they can't tell blatant untruths about him and get away with it.

WW

I've no idea but I do know I have challenged a few links and mentioned Fake News on other threads.

For example take the story of The Pope backing Trump, I am pretty sure I remember that on a GN thread on Trump. Fake News.

I was watching a programme on Fake News and it was amazing the stories and photos they were showing which I had heard and seen but were in fact 'faked' , 'photo shopped'. It showed how easy it was to fake what somebody was saying! Very scary stuff and best avoided.

There was a professor of something on a couple of days ago and he was saying that it is getting more and more difficult for people to know what is true or false. So I guess the rules are going to have to change to keep up with the times.

So what happens pogs if you put something on in good faith

As I said, helf way down the link was probably the important bit

Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.

I am not sure good faith is any defence.

I think we are all held responsible for what we say. If my memory is correct, there have been cases where people have re-tweeted messages of others on Twitter and been sued for very large sums.

Jen - MPs can say what they like about anyone in Parliament without fear of a defamation action. But I don't think that wouldn't protect them from other laws e.g. Laws around incitement unto racial hatred. Whitewave - we don't all get the same protections from liable actions that are available to the press. But their protection is not absolute. As I've said they are often successfully sued.

Sorry "..I don't think that WOULD protect them..."!

I think I am right in saying, that althought we think we are just "chatting" we are in fact publishing?

Gransnet words
Please note that Gransnet has non-exclusive copyright in all submissions to Gransnet, and reserves the right to edit and re-publish these in print form.

Note the word re-publish.

LaraGransnet and anyone else can correct me if I am wrong on that!

If a link is connecting you to a site that is obviously left wing/right wing propaganda it is usually easy to check it's content for accuracy. Not all the time I admit.

The best thing to do is ask yourself why a link ,a photo has been put up. If it is obviously making a snide, crude, offensive comment and targeting a person the poster obviously dislikes then be cautious because most respectable sites are careful not to use 'content' that clearly would/could be libellous, or indeed of a salacious nature.

If a link directs you to nothing more than an individual blogger making an individual comment then it is usually pretty easy to question it's content.

If a link, photo is connected to an organisation which is well known, then you are probably OK but I would want to see it in/on more than one site to be honest.

An interesting view of Speaker Burcow. It is noticeable that the true Parliamentarians differ in opinion from the Government placemen.

Profile: John Bercow, one of the best Speakers of modern times, but also by far the rudest

Graces - he may be very good at his job as speaker, but he got it very wrong this time.

edition.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kellyanne-conway-jake-tapper-interview-cnntv/index.html

Even the Whitehouse can't agree on what is fake news. Kellyanne Conway has realised they need CNN.

I saw your post above Fitzy and I can see that is your opinion.

But then, GracesGran, another article in Conservativehome says that the outburst was uncharacteristic of him. Does that mean being rude wasn't characteristic for him? You wouldn't think so for all the comments.

A reason to be pleased we live in the UK, and not the US.

money.cnn.com/2017/02/07/media/murder-rate-donald-trump-media-conspiracy-theories/index.html

Trump can lie as much as he likes and nothing can be done about it. Anyone who disagrees, it's fake news.
No president should be able to get away with such obvious lies.

Ah, but which has been lies?
[note I am very wary of asking you or anyone now in case you repeat stuff that actually isnt a lie at all].
Personally I have become super confused about which has been found out to be lies.
If I am right, him saying about crowd sizes wasnt even lies because they were given wrong stats by some organisation or other?

So for me, I havent a clue anymore whether there have been any actual lies at all or not.

ok, I will do this. Will you actully put anything down here that is a definite lie by trump?
Probably not?

And if you cant, why not?
a. because there may not have been any actual lies
b. if there were, or if there were not, you cant prove it, so maybe they are not
c. you are not convinced enough to stand by it

so
d best not to say or keep saying that he has definitely lied.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Graces - yes it is my opinion but why isn't it yours? This isn't about whether what he said was right or wrong, but whether he should involve himself in such debates. What would you have said if Bercow had, without being asked at all, announced that Trump would be welcomed with open arms to the House? He just should not get involved - leave it to the other MPs.

That is a bit unfair to DJ Ankers (unless being ironic) You are not slow at posting links either!
I suppose it depends on whether you read other people's links and compare or check them with your own sources. Or if you trust the sources,

ankers that was a very controversial and unnecessary thing to say. We need at the very least to accept what we say to each other is done in good faith otherwise what is the point of it and who is telling the truth and who isn't. If nothing we can be believed then it all becomes a nonsense. I could say the same to you but I wouldn't as I think it is too rude, and I wouldn't want to hurt you unnecessarily.

Any ideas?

Our 11 year old DGS is a fussy eater, he only eats chicken, chips, spaghetti (no sauce) perhaps sprinkley cheese, toast (no butter or jam) in fact nothing liquid on his meal at all. If DOH cooks real chicken he fastidiously picks off all the brown bits. We have tried getting him to make his own food so that he knows what goes into it, he will cook, no problem but he will not eat what he cooks, it is painful to watch. He is healthy and fit. Any ideas?

wrong thread?

I think I've put this in the wrong place sorry I will try to replace it ?