Last night (17th November) the Council Overview committee decided to ratify the Cabinet decision to formally reject the potential Indemnity partner Riveroak. However when the meeting had finished death threats (now a police matter) were made to a UKIP Councillor.
The reaction from the majority of people who saw this post was understandable horror and revulsion, however nobody was surprised as many have felt for a long time certain elements within the Pro campaign were out of control and there have been many posts from that quarter blaming everybody for the failure of TDC, both Labour and UKIP, to "get the airport open".
The most vocal of the Pro supporters, who congregate in Manston loud hailer had this reaction:
Whilst this seems a reasonable debate on the surface what is consistent is their seeming inability to understand their own part in the conditions they create whereby some idiot feels it necessary to carry out "death threats" on another human being. Their constant dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Their constant vilification of Ann Gloag, Cartner & Musgrave, Chris Wells, Iris Johnston, Pauline Bradley, Paul Carter the list goes on. Their shouts of "corruption", "Brown Envelopes" Etc all add to the climate of Evil they spread. There is much written on the internet about this subject but I found this article which sums it up pretty well.
"Particularly notable, Zimbardo said, is that people are seduced into evil by dehumanizing and labeling others.
"They semantically change their perception of victims, of the evil act, and change the relationship of the aggressor to their aggression--so 'killing' or 'hurting' becomes the same as 'helping,'" he said.
For example, in a 1975 experiment by psychologist Albert Bandura, PhD, college students were told they'd work with students from another school on a group task. In one condition, they overheard an assistant calling the other students "animals" and in another condition, "nice." Bandura found students were more apt to deliver what they believed were increased levels of electrical shock to the other students if they had heard them called "animals."."You don't need a motive," Zimbardo said. "All you really need is a situation that facilitates moving across that line of good and evil." So is it a few bad apples that spoil a barrel? "That's what we want to believe--that we could never be a bad apple," Zimbardo said. "We're the good ones in the barrel." But people can be influenced, regardless of their intention to resist, he said. People's aggression can also increase when they feel anonymous--for example if they wear a uniform, hood or mask" ( it's the same when posting on Facebook, you feel divorced from your actions. It's why Cyber-Bullies thrive *My PVP), Zimbardo said.* read
"What makes good people do bad things?"
Further examples in history are the assasination of Thomas a Becket (people remember the words of the King at the time "Who will rid me of this troublesome Priest"
and
He fine tuned his Ministry of Propaganda in Nazi Germany
and also the conditions within North Korea, as an example, where the State is always correct and any dissent is dealt with harshly are similar to certain Facebook pages because only one view is allowed "Manston as an airport"
What the more vocal pro supporters do not understand is posting memes like this is NOT banter nor is it funny in the wider context of dehumanising people who lets face it are only agreeing with the previous decision of the old Labour administration.
Nor is it funny when the same group of individuals make the same effort to dehumanise the blog author and attempt to discredit him without proof.
Free Speech does not mean freedom to abuse
Freedom of speech should never mean freedom to abuse. As a victim, I welcome plans to unmask cowardly internet trolls
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158120/Freedom-speech-mean-freedom-abuse-As-victim-I-welcome-plans-unmask-cowardly-internet-trolls.html#ixzz3s2XeYvKg
Freedom of speech does mean freedom to abuse. Your way is censorship presumably of what you don't like. Freedom of speech allows discussion of anything even if you find it unpleasant. ..
ReplyDeleteAnon you have the freedom to post drivel on here without being identified remember. Freedom of speech remember meant the freedom to get yourself shot "Je Suis Charlie" however no one has the freedom to abuse as there are specific Laws in this country as the recent prosecution of a Ramsgate women shows. I'm afraid you are simply wrong and while we discuss censorship why is it SMA refuse to allow those with a different viewpoint to post on their FB page. And I might add without being abusive.
DeleteYoure confused Barry.
DeleteAccusing me of drivel is abuse by you that you supposedly dislike in others.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action.
Killing of innocents is wrong unless its by our bombs yes?
Sma are navelgazers hence refusing debate much as ukip do or indeed most of tdc....
Call me Charlie...like an anon cartoonist...
Barry laws encompass everything. And both sides of an argument so they're hardly definitive. The point being you may not like freedom of speech and denigrate it as abuse but it must be voiced. SMA are vocal and have proved themselves to be not worth listening to. Let them be rude and foolish to their declining circle of bumpkins.
DeleteAn interesting article on future Manston and the aquifer in Thanet Watch - neither an airport or housing
DeleteBazza isn't confused, you are anon 12:36 what you wrote is drivel. And I see you still haven't the courage to put your name to this comment.
DeleteTypical keyboard warrior without the balls to own up to your comment. Bless
Anon Nowhere in freedom of speech does it allow the freedom to abuse the person making the comment. Nor are abusive comments allowed on here. Calling a comment drivel isn't abusive it is just stating a fact. There have been many people prosecuted due to their abusive posting on Facebook and twitter and if you feel that what I said was abusive then contact your local police station on 101. However I doubt you will seeing as Libel and Slander Laws have no affect when the person posting posts as anonymous. I suggest you get yourself a google account and have the courage of your convictions to put your name to the post
DeleteShould abuse or censorship be banned?
DeleteHow many Sma turned up on Tuesday? 30?
I see its our FORS chairman, John Davis, posting vile images on MLH. People of Ramsgate do you really want someone like him representing our seafront. You never know you might be next on his list for abuse. The picture of the naked man looks more like our mate from Mississippi the 'Cheese' :)
DeleteAbela insulting from far away behind the safety of the internet. Troll.
DeleteAnon 12:57 Personally I have issues with him however he certainly has the courage to put his name to the post unlike yourself
DeleteWhat has Abela done now?
DeleteOh dear Barry they are really slating you tonight on MLH. You have messed with poor Kandy's head and her dear ole mate, Cheesewright' in Mississippi wants to "tear your head off and shit down your neck". Then we have the 5th rate journalist, Smee making an absolute cock up along with his followers on MLH. Lets hope hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the a*** when a certain person finds out he is being accused of being a troll on twitter.
DeleteReally anon. mouthing off on a closed FB site is hardly anything to be bothered about especially as I've heard it all before.
DeleteIt's like old women gossiping over the fence, they really need to get a life.
I expect they are unhappy about RO getting the boot I hear they have fallen out with SuMA never mind.
Barry 12:54 freedom of speech is just that. You seem to imply its a law with specific points? And yes it does allow freedom of abuse. That's why its freedom of speech....Calling comments drivel isnt fact its rude and abusive opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnon 13:08 I said "freedom to abuse" please read properly before you comment.
DeleteHowever you interpret it no one has the right to abuse another human being remember "play the ball not the man"
In my opinion what you wrote is plain wrong. No one abused you and further I still note you do not wish to leave your anonymity. Why is that?
Anon is freedom of speech isn't it? Freedom of abuse was understood and it falls under freedom of speech....or speech wouldn't be free....I appreciate you may not like insults but they are free speech and you saying its wrong is an empty point
DeleteAnon if you don't read what is written and want a "strawman" argument that is up to you, however it doesn't change what I wrote which again was "Freedom of speech doesn't give you freedom to abuse". Now that is clear and unambiguous can we get back on topic.
DeleteWhat is FORS and MLH and who is John Davis?
ReplyDeleteFORS = "Friends of Ramsgate Seafront
DeleteMLH = Manston Loudhailer a FB group
John Davis = variously the Chair or Vice-chair of FORS
Fors is friends of ramsgate seafront but I don't know who or what they do
DeleteMlh support Manston? Never heard
DeleteWhat does John Davis do?
DeleteHurl abuse on Facebook. What he does for a living, have no idea
DeleteWhat is fors for
DeleteWe shouldn't have courts and police wasted on rude twitter comments.
ReplyDeleteDefine rude
DeleteDictionary Baz....back to the point
DeleteThe future of Manston? 3k of the 15k houses?
ReplyDeletePossibly however in this case the spectre of a CPO has to be removed and then Thanet Planning can judge whether it is right or wrong to put housing on the site. The provisional consultation from Cartner & Musgrave said 2500 houses. It would be good to see whether the consultation amended that view or not
DeleteA cpo is irrelevant now. Its finished
DeleteNot for River no Oak trees it's not,their coming with sir Roger gale,the last stand,Freudmann will not be seen,not yet anyway!
ReplyDelete