The government is using public money to finance its own media platform.

Sounds like a very generous thing to do for the public good except Welcome to Gresham’s

If you want to attend the same school as James Dyson then this is the cost.

Meanwhile state funded schools are falling down around us. This is why we need better tax laws than we have now.

I took a 2 month ban from worldnews@lemmy.ml

There was no message to say a ban had been applied. I messaged a mod to say I had trouble posting and asked if there was a ban applied. I got no response.

I eventually spotted there is a modlog, and low and behold it mentions I was banned for 2 months for antisemitism. I have to say I found this appalling.

When I dug further it turns out that I gave a reply to someone asking why the phrase "from the river to the sea" is considered antisemitic. I replied that is considered as referring to the genocide of the Jews in Israel. I gave a newspaper article link that showed a Labour MP who was removed from the party for using the quote.

The comment has been deleted, there was no information given regarding the ban, there is no point of reference to contest the ban. It is crass beyond belief. I am extremely insulted that someone gets to label me antisemitic for something that is very evidently not, and then hide behind an unbreakable barrier.

Edited to remove one sentence. It stated I would leave all Lemmy instances. Context in comments below.

Second edit: I finally got a moderator to respond to this.

from @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml

You reported antizionism as antisemitism. You did an antisemitism.

Your source to support your claim also relies on antisemitism and the conflating of Jews and Israel.

I guess this is a community to ignore. Thank you for the responses. I will not respond to anymore here.

My response was:

Thank you for your response. Your community your rules. I made a post to try and get my head around this idiocy last night.

I will not use your community again.

EDIT: please update the ban log to reflect this. There is a huge difference between your reasoning and antisemitism.

Life is cheap it seems.

Asked what the government should do in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

• 29% say the government should pursue a similar agreement with a different country;
• 39% say the government should scrap the policy;
• 14% say they should do something else;
• 18% say they don't know

Asked if the UK should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights:

• 51% said the UK should remain a member;
• 28% say the UK should withdraw;
• 21% say they are not sure.

30% of the country are idiots who will jump under any racist banner they can find. They have absolutely no idea what they are signing up to. A more pertinent poll would be to ask if they understood the ECHR and what it does.

The ECHR is a higher court than we hold in the UK for a reason. It is where you hold government to account. Without the ECHR the tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster would still be blaming the Liverpool fans, and there would be no accountability.

This is the text and what power we would be handing to government.

Article 1 – obligation to respect human rights

• The state has the responsibility to respect every individual’s human rights, as set out in the Convention itself.

Article 2 – right to life

• We all have the right to life, and not be killed by another person.

• The state must protect people’s lives by enforcing the law, protecting those in danger, and safeguard against accidental deaths.

The state could murder you and not be held accountable for it.

Article 3 – prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

• Nobody, under any circumstances, can torture or abuse anyone else. We should never be treated in ways that cause us serious physical or mental suffering.

Forced confessions could become a thing again in the UK.

Article 4 – prohibition of slavery and forced labour

• Nobody should ever be made a slave or forced to work against their will.
• There are minor exceptions to this article, for example in some cases it is legal to require someone to work in if they’re in prison or the military services.

This government has tried to implement unpaid work in the past and failed because of this law.

Article 5 – right to liberty and security

• We can only be detained in certain circumstances, for example if we’ve been convicted by a court, or if we’re considered to be a danger to ourselves.

The government could just lock you away without accountability.

Article 6 – right to a fair trial

• We have the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable amount of time, by an independent and unbiased judge.

• If charged with an offence we should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Speaks for itself

Article 7 – no punishment without law

• All crimes should be clearly defined by the law. We can only be found guilty of a criminal offence if there was a law against it at the time the act was committed. Once found guilty of a crime we cannot later be given a heavier sentence.

They can make laws and convict you in retrospect. ie: making walking on cracks on the pavement illegal, then show evidence you did this last week.

Article 8 – right to respect privacy and family life

• This right exists to protect four things: our family life, our home, our private life, and our correspondence.

• We have the right to live with our family and our loved ones.

• Respect for the home guards against intrusion into where we live, or to protect us being forced from where we live without good reason.

• Respect for private life protects our personal freedoms, including respect for our sexuality, the right not to be placed under unlawful surveillance, or for us not to have personal information spread about us against our will.

• Respect for correspondence allows for us to communicate with others freely and in full privacy.

This is the protection you have over the big brother state and its abuse.

Article 9 – freedom of thought, conscience and religion

• We all have the right to hold religious and other beliefs. We also have the right to change these beliefs when we choose. We should be free to worship and express our beliefs both in public and private spaces.

Let Braverman loose with this one if you dare.

Article 10 – freedom of expression

• We have the right for us to hold our own opinions, to express our views and ideas, and to share information with others.

• This article can protect our right to express views that some may find unpopular or offensive.

Article 11 – freedom of assembly and association

• We have the right to join with others to protect our common interests, to form trade unions political parties.

• Importantly this article also exists to protect our right to hold meetings, and to assemble in groups to peacefully protest.

This one is already under threat.

Article 12 – right to marry

• We have the right marry who we want to, and to start a family.

Article 13 – right to an effective remedy

• If our rights are violated then we must be able to challenge this through legal means. The state must make arrangement for this, and there may be compensation for any damage caused to us.

This about government accountability.

Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination

• Our rights should never be denied to us due to any form of discrimination, whether due to our ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

Anyone who saw how Braverman played the protests at the weekend should understand this.

Article 15 – derogation in time of emergency

• A state can choose to ignore some specific rights in the ECHR at a time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation, but any removal of rights should be limited to those absolutely required by the situation. A state must always make sure these measures are consistent with its obligations under International Law.

Article 16 – restriction on political activity of non-nationals

• A state can restrict the political activity of non-nationals, but this does not apply to the nationals of EU member states when in an EU country.

Article 17 – prohibition of abuse of rights

• Nothing in the ECHR allows for any state, group or individual to destroy the rights and freedoms that the convention protects.

Article 18 – limitation on use of restriction of rights

• The restrictions allowed by the convention should not be applied for any other purpose than those explained in the convention itself.

The link to the text also has a petition on it. Maybe now would be a good time to attach your name to it.

This is where Braverman wants to send vulnerable people.

Credit @livus@kbin.social with https://feddit.uk/post/3374159

There was more of this at the weekend.

Do you think Trump is going to cry the mentally impaired plea, and using this as proof of oncoming senility?