Right-winger fully committed to describing every minor inconvenience as “Orwellian”.

[Kev45]

A local man has bravely taken a stand against the terrifying rise of tyranny by declaring literally everything he mildly dislikes as “Orwellian.”

Daytone Williams, aged 63, from Swindon, an unemployed spoon bender, reportedly used the term to describe everything from a parking fine to the new self-service checkouts at Tesco, warning friends that “the Ministry of Love probably designed those bloody card readers.”

It’s proper 1984, isn’t it, he muttered ominously after being asked to reset his Apple ID password for the third time this month.

Sources close to Williams claim his Orwell-detection skills are now so finely tuned that he once described a council wheelie bin rota as “Big Brother in hi-vis.”

He tried to convince me that getting a parking ticket was just like living in an Orwellian novel, said his long-suffering African grey parrot.

I said no mate, you just parked like an arse. Nothing Orwellian about it.

Williams has also accused the NHS of being Orwellian for asking him to book appointments online, the BBC for only commissioning “agenda-pushing” cooking shows, and a local café for removing cholesterol laden fried greasy bacon from the menu.

He’s never actually read 1984, a concerned ex-girlfriend revealed.

He just played V for Vendetta online once and now thinks a QR code is the first step to a surveillance state.

Experts warn this trend is spreading, with the word “Orwellian” now legally required to appear in every Facebook comment thread involving recycling, parking charges, or literally anything happening within two miles of a camera.

As of press time, Williams was seen shouting “Thoughtcrime!” at a barista for accidentally spelling his name “Detontay” on a paper cup.

He is currently believed to be writing a dystopian novel titled Flat White Fascism: My Life Under the Soy Milk Regime.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

We have sleep walked into a Orwellian society.

The supermarkets know what we buy and have facial recognition cctv. We're told this is to give us all better deals and to stop shoplifting.

Phones and computers all have cameras too. All are being recorded 24/7 and stored.

Devices in our homes that listen into conversions. From ring door bells to Alexa, we're all being monitored while we sleep. Anything we read or view online is the same

You can face arrest for "thought crimes" ageist the state world view. From parents who complain schools are poor to those sending emails to our leaders, all face a interview by the Police.

Only yesterday I got a small box from the NHS. They want me to put a small stick in my poo and send it back to them. They say its for bowel cancer screening but who really knows the real reason.

 

[DurhamLad]

Probably two sides to this story:

1) Aye, there are swathes of assorted tweet fiends on social media crying Fascism and conspiracy over just about anything, in the same vein that people such as Gary Lineker impart every fashionable opinion going on social media. Seems to me that we have two 'sides' who are dug in and are relentlessly tweeting the same things at each other ad nauseam.

2) If you ignore the tweet fiends within those 'sides', who are basically the same hysterical people shouting about different things, we do actually have some worrying authoritarian measures in place in this country which have been proposed and/or supported by both of our main political parties.

3) The extent to which people in this country increasingly believe that some opinions must be shut down is concerning also. My observation, based on message boards and the like, is that there is an increasing intolerance toward alternative opinions and mob rule like behaviour to have perceived distasteful opinions shut down. Very dangerous and certainly not democratic.

In sum, there may well be hysterical people calling everything Fascism and conspiracy, but that doesn't negate the fact that both of our main parties have the touch of authoritarianism about them and have implemented some measures that are highly questionable when it comes to being able to lay claim to being a democratic country.

 

[Kev45]

I am struggling to understand how a mass screening programme from the NHS to screen for bowel cancer is for any other purpose other than what it says on the sample vial.

Perhaps the NHS is secretly constructing a giant ball of excrement, at a secret location in West Sussex, to defend the UK in the event of a surprise Russian attack?

In the same token, if the data collected is used for any other purpose than agreed by consent (date protection act) then we absolutely should know about it.

If you don't want to be screened for bowel cancer, then don't send in a sample.

The UK has been one of the most surveiled societies for decades, and it isn't a new phenomenon. But personally, I don't believe people are arrested for perceived "thought" crime in any great numbers, simply because there is no current data (evidence) to support this crackpot theory.

No evidence at all.

Anecdotally, I find those frequently complaining about "free speech," are usually on the right-wing spectrum of politics, and first in line to try and shut down "free speech"when it goes against their ideology.

A recent example could be the ECHR defending the rights of irregular immigrants or asylum seekers thereby giving them a voice, the right-wing belief that we should pull out of the ECHR and give them no voice at all.

Take the recent criminal charges against conspiracy theorist Russel Brand as another example, and where four women, totally independent of each other, have accused him of various historical sexual offences and including rape. Almost immediately, Brand posted a professionally produced video denying the allegations.

In which he mumbled (hinted) about conspiracy theories and said, "I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

I did look in your eyes, pal, and you're 100% a wrong un.

But my point is, "free speech" gave him a platform to air a robust denial without fear of arrest by the "thought" police.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

I am struggling to understand how a mass screening programme from the NHS to screen for bowel cancer is for any other purpose other than what it says on the sample vial.

Perhaps the NHS is secretly constructing a giant ball of excrement, at a secret location in West Sussex, to defend the UK in the event of a surprise Russian attack?

Kev I have no idea of there devilish evil plan for my poo stick. Personally I think its a good way to look for illegal immigrants. If the poo on that sick don't match the Great British diet of cakes, curry and chips, they send the Police round !!

 

[Kev45]

Why do I have visions of DOA squatting over his stool sample vial, praying he hits the target after 14 failed attempts.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Wait, I've just had another thought, what if its a poo drug test

 

[DurhamLad]

Well, "the left" and "the right" is a bit antiquated, they mean different things to different people and the modern day incarnations are certainly far removed from the original tenets of Liberalism and Conservatism.

Liberalism is a broad spectrum of political thought and there are undoubtedly many people who deem themselves to be liberals who are falling over themselves to shut people down for all sorts of reasons. Personally, I would say they're illiberal. Then again, there have always been interventionist and non-interventionist 'liberals'.

As for the ECHR, the British alternative wouldn't have been much different. I had a look at it at the time and from memory there were four roads of departure. I agreed with the ECHR on three of them and the Tory government on one of them. Therefore, from a purely pragmatic point of view I'll go with the ECHR.

Mind you, wanting to have your own law making body as the primary law making body is not akin to clamping down on freedom of speech.

 

[Kev45]

We are on completely different pages, with regard to a definition of left or right and what "free speech" actually means, and I don't agree 'left' and 'right' is simply liberalism versus conservatism.

As a socialist, I wouldn't consider Starmer's authoritarian "centrist progressive liberal" Labour to be left wing by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not after the purge of the socialist left wing once he won the leadership contest on the back of 10 socialist left wing pledges and which were immediately kicked into the long grass or watered down.

Yet the right wing MSM and its followers, including on this forum, would and do describe Starmer as a left wing socialist who wants to "suppress" free speech, "two tier Keir" etc.

It was the Tories, not Labour, who introduced Draconian laws while still in power, which have and will suppress so-called free speech, or at least my interpretation of it.

In your earlier post, you spoke about increased intolerance and mob rule as if it is some kind of modern problem which didn't exist previously. It most certainly did exist, NF/BNP v the anti-fascist movement in the 80s, etc, and when they used to beat the shite out of each other. The difference now is an internet which amplifies those differences, in an echo chamber, but those polar opposite views have always existed and have always been in conflict with each other.

You would have to give some examples of how free speech is being shut down in the context being applied here because quite frankly, as I said, in my opinion there is no evidence to support that particular argument, if there was any evidence the data would show it.

 

[DurhamLad]

We can't be on different pages when it comes to freedom of speech. It's a defined, long-standing concept that isn't open to interpretation.

Your ECHR example: I'm not sure what you mean in relation to immigrants and asylum seekers, but I reckon you're confusing lack of representation with freedom of speech. These are two entirely different concepts.

I agree with you on Starmer. He's bought and paid for by the same people who own the Tories, Farage and associates and the rest of them.

In my earlier post, I wasn't talking about mobs having a scrap. I was talking about mobs, aka assorted middle class liberals sat in suburbia in southern England somewhere, increasingly dictating what people can and cannot say. I'll provide some examples when I get a minute.

 

[Kev45]

We are on completely different pages, as I said, and I thought rather clearly, but perhaps you just didn't understand me.

You believe that there is liberalism and conservatism and nothing else, and said so.

"Freedom of speech" most certainly is a "concept" that is open to "interpretation", and is challenged in the British and higher courts on a regular basis. Including following the recent Southport riots or the peaceful climate change protests. For example, national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the rights of others, may all fall outside the remit of "freedom of speech".

You appear to believe any old Tom Dick or Harry can just say what they like and when they want. There has always been restrictions, they can't, have never been able to, and will never be able to.

If you weren't so vague, I would have known exactly what "mobs" you were referring to, but even so is totally irrelevant anyway. If someone exercises their right to "freedom of speech" to racially abuse someone else. That person in turn will exercise their right to deal with it how they deem appropriate, which could be via a legal route or otherwise, and hence my comment about "mobs" in the 80s.

 

[DurhamLad]

We are on completely different pages, as I said, and I thought rather clearly, but perhaps you just didn't understand me.

At this juncture, correct, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You believe that there is liberalism and conservatism and nothing else, and said so.

Incorrect. I haven't said such a thing; you've made it up.

"Freedom of speech" most certainly is open to "interpretation"

It's not. You've made this up as well. My guess is: you've made this up out of political expediency.

You appear to believe any old Tom Dick or Harry can just say what they like and when they want.

What do you mean: what they like when they want? Meat on the bones: such as and where?

If someone exercises their right to "freedom of speech" to racially abuse someone else. That person in turn will exercise their right to deal with it how they deem appropriate, which could be via a legal route or otherwise, and hence my comment about "mobs" in the 80s.

Why is racial abuse relevant to this conversation?

 

[Kev45]

I know you have no idea what I am talking about, I have said so twice now.

Don't ask me for "meat on the bones", you made the initial allegation about "free speech" back it up with evidence.

You claim you are university educated, you must know how this works, right?

 

[Kev45]

No evidence then?

You sure are reluctant to "put meat on the bones" here and explain in detail what your 'vague' "concept" of "free speech" actually means. Because you do genuinely appear to believe that there is only one version of "free speech", your cherry-picked version, and only your cherry-picked version and whatever that cherry-picked version means.

A "free speech" 'champion' who gleans his information on the subject from "message boards and the like".

However, unfortunately for you, the "concept" of "free speech" is of course open to "interpretation". Often varying (sometimes significantly) based on "concepts" like legislation, nationality, cultural norms and values and or legal or ethical frameworks, and political ideology etc. In every other country, on every continent, on planet earth. The "concept" of "free speech" can and often does mean different things, and the "concept" of "free speech" will often mean different things to those different societies.

What is deemed a fundamental tenet of "free speech" in one 'liberal' society might not be deemed appropriate in another. The "concept" (abstract idea), of "free speech" (in the UK) is NOT set in stone and, so by definition, is ALWAYS open to "interpretation".

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Someone take the batteries out of Kev bum, he needs a reboot

 

[Kev45]

I am still smiling at your AI Chatbot generated WWII exchange on the other thread, unfortunately though totally out of synch, and you two never learn, do you?

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Kev must have an internal battery
Its a same I cant turn him off like Kev does with women

 

[Kinell]

There is always Freedom Of Speech as long as Kev agrees to it

 

[Kev45]

This one believes that his Lobby tactics will also be effective on the forum.

Because @Ben bites, he assumes everyone else will as well.

 

[Kinell]

This one can believe whatever he wants to believe. Ben in the Lobby has nothing to do with someone on this forum trying to re-define 'free speech' to suit his own narratives.