Stokes Family Abused

[AlpineExile]

what a load of bollocks.

'the sun has sympathy for ben stokes' - so why publish this story?

'co-operation of a family member' - tricked or paid a long lost cousin for a snippet of info

'he was contacted and didn't ask us not to publish' - i didn't ask not be punched in the face doesn't mean that i wanted to be punched in the face

Exactly. I dont know the connection of family member as havent read story but i suspect they will be already distant and needing a bit of cash.

What is worse is that they were contacting him about it. What were they expecting him to say if he answered phone?

The source is not related to Ben Stokes or his mother. She is, however, related to the murderer.

"Family member": yeah, right.

 

[Bri]

Errrr no, it’s 5 pages of people calling the rag out for being a c*nt.

Of course! But you're still talking about the story.

Person 1: The Sun is a c*nt for printing that Stokes story.
Person 2: What story? I'll just go look it up. Oh that story? I never knew that, that's horrible .... etc etc etc.

 

[brandon]

Yes. If there wasn't a market for this shit, it wouldn't happen.

Two ways of stopping it. One: some sort or regulation. But this is murky - what are the rules? That's what I was saying - plenty of people outraged here I am sure will gossip about politicians or celebrities private lives. The Royals. Ordinary people. Whoever. Codifying the limits of privacy and creating regulation to make private media organisations act accordingly is tricky because of freedom of speech and enterprise.

Two: everyone stops paying attention to shit like this. Yet here is everyone saying it's disgusting with one hand, whilst clicking furiously away at the clickbait with the other.

It's the same with fake news. Easy to blame the publishers, tougher to put the attention back on what dark impulses make us revel in it.


You seem incapable of talking about the matter in anything other than Stokes = hero, The Sun = ***** terms. And yet you are nifty enough to quote me here whilst omitting the rest of my sentence which explained to you exactly what I was doing. Nice cut and paste that, the irony.

If you don't want to talk about any of the issues it raises and just want cheap dunks on me then carry on. But can't be bothered to explain to you, again, the points I'm making.

There was no cut and paste actually, lets be right about it - I quoted your comment BEFORE you edited it and added the bit that followed. Initially the quote was word for word what your post said. When people click on that quote, they’ll see the words ‘Last edited: Today at 1:27 PM

Let’s let the forum decide who they believe on it.

As for Stokes v The Scum - there is enough evidence out there for me to have made my mind up about that particular shitrag and therefore I feel my opinion of them is a balanced one based on years of their ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’.

 

[AlpineExile]

There was no cut and paste actually, lets be right about it - I quoted your comment BEFORE you edited it and added the bit that followed. Initially the quote was word for word what your post said. When people click on that quote, they’ll see the words ‘Last edited: Today at 1:27 PM

Let’s let the forum decide who they believe on it.

As for Stokes v The Scum - there is enough evidence out there for me to have made my mind up about that particular shitrag and therefore I feel my opinion of them is a balanced one based on years of their ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’.

Well you did post your reply a minute before Comeback last edited his/her post, so ...

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

There was no cut and paste actually, lets be right about it - I quoted your comment BEFORE you edited it and added the bit that followed. Initially the quote was word for word what your post said.

Let’s let the forum decide who they believe on it.

As for Stokes v The Scum - there is enough evidence out there for me to have made my mind up about that particular shitrag and therefore I feel my opinion of them is a balanced one based on years of their ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’.

Fair enough, I don't recall that - but I do edit a lot of posts quite quickly because something else pops into my head to make things clearer when I read back.

You're missing my point still, mind.

Of course if the debate is Stokes v the Sun then everyone is on Stokes's side.

The point is that there is more to this than the simple black and white issue. People are talking about what the limits of privacy are, who deserves them, whether free speech and freedom to publish should be curtailed, what is and isn't newsworthy, are we all morally complicit in this because we click on stuff, or not.

You might think I should have shut up and not raised those questions, but plenty of people on here are now talking about them. And in my opinion that's good. Because if you want thinks to improve in society then you have to do more than sit around point the finger at ***** - that's f***ing easy. You have to look into things a bit more and think about how rules affect everyone. Raising that debate doesn't mean I'm defending the Sun - should be obvious.

Or we could have 30 pages of - back Stokes, scream at the Sun. Fine. Doesn't change anything.

There was no cut and paste actually, lets be right about it - I quoted your comment BEFORE you edited it and added the bit that followed. Initially the quote was word for word what your post said. When people click on that quote, they’ll see the words ‘Last edited: Today at 1:27 PM

Let’s let the forum decide who they believe on it.

As for Stokes v The Scum - there is enough evidence out there for me to have made my mind up about that particular shitrag and therefore I feel my opinion of them is a balanced one based on years of their ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’.

The irony of this! You added that after I quoted you!

Let's draw a line under this angle - I apologise for the accusation, it's clearly a case of us replying to each other too quickly.

 

[brandon]

Fair enough, I don't recall that - but I do edit a lot of posts quite quickly because something else pops into my head to make things clearer when I read back.

You're missing my point still, mind.

Of course if the debate is Stokes v the Sun then everyone is on Stokes's side.

The point is that there is more to this than the simple black and white issue. People are talking about what the limits of privacy are, who deserves them, whether free speech and freedom to publish should be curtailed, what is and isn't newsworthy, are we all morally complicit in this because we click on stuff, or not.

You might think I should have shut up and not raised those questions, but plenty of people on here are now talking about them. And in my opinion that's good. Because if you want thinks to improve in society then you have to do more than sit around point the finger at ***** - that's f***ing easy. You have to look into things a bit more and think about how rules affect everyone.

Or we could have 30 pages of - back Stokes, scream at the Sun. Fine. Doesn't change anything.

People are only talking about the limits of privacy because once again, the worst collection of journalists and dispicable **** investigators have proven just how vile they are.

Fortunately, humanity seems to be unanimous in their condemnation and as The Rat alludes to, it’s likely that heads will roll over this. The only sad thing is that it’ll be because it costs them money and reputation, not because the actions of those involved are abhorrent.

I fully support free speech, I support a free press, I also support the right to call people out for being c*nts and I sincerely hope this is the final nail in the coffin for The Scum.

I STILL can’t believe there are people defending them.

Fair enough, I don't recall that - but I do edit a lot of posts quite quickly because something else pops into my head to make things clearer when I read back.

You're missing my point still, mind.

Of course if the debate is Stokes v the Sun then everyone is on Stokes's side.

The point is that there is more to this than the simple black and white issue. People are talking about what the limits of privacy are, who deserves them, whether free speech and freedom to publish should be curtailed, what is and isn't newsworthy, are we all morally complicit in this because we click on stuff, or not.

You might think I should have shut up and not raised those questions, but plenty of people on here are now talking about them. And in my opinion that's good. Because if you want thinks to improve in society then you have to do more than sit around point the finger at ***** - that's f***ing easy. You have to look into things a bit more and think about how rules affect everyone. Raising that debate doesn't mean I'm defending the Sun - should be obvious.

Or we could have 30 pages of - back Stokes, scream at the Sun. Fine. Doesn't change anything.


The irony of this! You added that after I quoted you!

Let's draw a line under this angle - I apologise for the accusation, it's clearly a case of us replying to each other too quickly.

I added it so as to make it easier for people to check the facts. They can therefore go to the post and make doubly sure I’m telling the truth on the time.

I’ve got nothing to hide on the subject.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

People are only talking about the limits of privacy because once again, the worst collection of journalists and dispicable **** investigators have proven just how vile they are.

Fortunately, humanity seems to be unanimous in their condemnation and as The Rat alludes to, it’s likely that heads will roll over this. The only sad thing is that it’ll be because it costs them money and reputation, not because the actions of those involved are abhorrent.

I fully support free speech, I support a free press, I also support the right to call people out for being c*nts and I sincerely hope this is the final nail in the coffin for The Scum.

I STILL can’t believe there are people defending them.


I added it so as to make it easier for people to check the facts. They can therefore go to the post and make doubly sure I’m telling the truth on the time.

I’ve got nothing to hide on the subject.

It won't change a thing for the Sun.

They'll never get a double page spread interview with Ben Stokes. Not sure they were ever likely in the running for that anyway given their history with him.

But nothing else will change because they know that there is a market for this kind of shithousery. And, more than that, they know that quite a lot of the people tweeting at them about how disgraceful it is will be back clicking on the next bit of clickbaity celebrity scandal they come with using the same tactics. That's why they've survived for decades - the morality of their behaviour does nothing to their business model, really. They only closed the News of the World down because they broke the f***ing law, not because they offended some kind of public sense of decency. This doesn't break the law - and, frankly, if you think it should then you are going to need precisely the wider conversation I tried to raise. That was my whole f***ing point, if you re-read my first post.

 

[brandon]

It won't change a thing for the Sun.

They'll never get a double page spread interview with Ben Stokes. Not sure they were ever likely in the running for that anyway given their history with him.

But nothing else will change because they know that there is a market for this kind of shithousery. And, more than that, they know that quite a lot of the people tweeting at them about how disgraceful it is will be back clicking on the next bit of clickbaity celebrity scandal they come with using the same tactics. That's why they've survived for decades - the morality of their behaviour does nothing to their business model, really. They only closed the News of the World down because they broke the f***ing law, not because they offended some kind of public sense of decency. This doesn't break the law - and, frankly, if you think it should then you are going to need precisely the wider conversation I tried to raise. That was my whole f***ing point, if you re-read my first post.

I never suggested it did break the law.

Your performance in this thread has been confusing to say the least - it seems like you’re arguing with yourself and trying to debate things that nobody else is disagreeing with you over.

I don’t think anyone on here will argue that society needs to change regarding it’s clamour for news about people’s private lives, that’s never really been up for debate apart from the way you’ve tried to put that forth. All people have been saying here is that the shitrag in question have crossed way beyond the boundaries of decency. Not only in the case of Stokes’ family, but time and time again, consistently throughout history.

As I say, your posts have been so confusing that it has led people to believe you’ve in some way been defending The Scum. It’s a very strange angle to have taken from the outset.

Newspapers have a duty to report the news and to check, double and triple check they’re being factually correct at all times. Personally, I think the law should demand that to be true and prosecutions should come for individuals and organisations that lie blatantly and intentionally to mislead. They all do it, they should be more accountable because unfortunately they do have a very persuasive platform and it gets abused far too often.

So to clarify, do you think The Scum are wrong to report this?

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I never suggested it did break the law.

Your performance in this thread has been confusing to say the least - it seems like you’re arguing with yourself and trying to debate things that nobody else is disagreeing with you over.

I don’t think anyone on here will argue that society needs to change regarding it’s clamour for news about people’s private lives, that’s never really been up for debate apart from the way you’ve tried to put that forth. All people have been saying here is that the shitrag in question have crossed way beyond the boundaries of decency. Not only in the case of Stokes’ family, but time and time again, consistently throughout history.

As I say, your posts have been so confusing that it has led people to believe you’ve in some way been defending The Scum. It’s a very strange angle to have taken from the outset.

Newspapers have a duty to report the news and to check, double and triple check they’re being factually correct at all times. Personally, I think the law should demand that to be true and prosecutions should come for individuals and organisations that lie blatantly and intentionally to mislead. They all do it, they should be more accountable because unfortunately they do have a very persuasive platform and it gets abused far too often.

So to clarify, do you think The Scum are wrong to report this?

Yes, I think they are morally wrong, but I wouldn't support a law that stopped them.

And to be fair, the only person it seems to have confused beyond the initial post is...

 

[brandon]

Yes, I think they are morally wrong, but I wouldn't support a law that stopped them.

And to be fair, the only person it seems to have confused beyond the initial post is...

So you wouldn’t support a law that forced the newspapers to be factual? Stopped them telling lies?

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

So you wouldn’t support a law that forced the newspapers to be factual? Stopped them telling lies?

I haven’t read all of the thread, have they actually told lies?

Genuine question

It’s a scummy thing to publish obviously. And not newsworthy. Is it not factually correct?

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

So you wouldn’t support a law that forced the newspapers to be factual? Stopped them telling lies?

There are already laws and regulations against that. Aye, you could tilt them a bit in the favour of making it easier to bring representations against them. But most of the pain they cause - and probably most in this case too, though I really haven't read in depth or know anything about the facts - is because they expose painful stuff in callous ways. It's not the veracity or otherwise that causes the pain mainly.

If they are wildly inaccurate about this, Stokes will be able to bring a case. I don't think that's why he's hurt though, or the main reason why its morally wrong.

 

[The warthog]

ECB should ban sun ‘journalists’ from their press conferences and events. Send a message.

 

[brandon]

I haven’t read all of the thread, have they actually told lies?

Genuine question

It’s a scummy thing to publish obviously. And not newsworthy. Is it not factually correct?

Someone alluded to the fact there are falsehoods in the article. I wouldn’t know.

Historically though, they have been proven to be lying bastards.

 

[Bri]

So you wouldn’t support a law that forced the newspapers to be factual? Stopped them telling lies?

I certainly wouldn't.

Who would decide on truth and lies? The state? - the very people who have the most power? Who will defend us against the state and hint, the usual answer includes a free press and that's is why dictators always restrict press freedom.

Remember there are already protections in law for individuals who think the press has lied about them.

Recently there have been so many 'fact checking' websites launched. Hillariously they turn out to be partisan and often in need of being fact checked themselves.

 

[The Rat]

Jofra on piers Morgan rag shit show tomorrow

Shouldn’t be going on

Morgan is good mates with the bloke who wrote this article and has publicly defended him the past, has the nerve to have stokes in his profile picture

 

[brandon]

I certainly wouldn't.

Who would decide on truth and lies? The state? - the very people who have the most power? Who will defend us against the state and hint, the usual answer includes a free press and that's is why dictators always restrict press freedom.

Remember there are already protections in law for individuals who think the press has lied about them.

Recently there have been so many 'fact checking' websites launched. Hillariously they turn out to be partisan and often in need of being fact checked themselves.

The people tasked with policing journalism already.......

IPSO -

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Bri]

The people tasked with policing journalism already.......

IPSO -

You must be logged on to see external links

Which is voluntary, not all papers sign up, those that do accept the code and fund it's work. It is essentially self regulation.

 

[CollingwoodFTM]

It’s about for a company that believes it is ok to hack dead a girl’s phone. News International should have been fined so severely for that that grey could not recover.

As far as I am concerned the Sun, it’s owners and employees are a pack of living tax dodging cuûnts.

 

[brandon]

Which is voluntary, not all papers sign up, those that do accept the code and fund it's work. It is essentially self regulation.

You do realise that if it became law they’d be suitably funded.......