The shape of things to come!

If you head across to my own small site, you may find a post which details my anger and annoyance at the sheer, unadulterated bullshit surrounding the imprisonment of a woman with dual British/Iranian nationality. Her husband pops up with doom-laden sentences on the BBC Today programme, all about how unfair it is that the British government isn’t laying siege to Iran, in order to get his bloody wife back.


I note this because I posted the very same document on AltNewsMedia, the website for whom I write, and much to my astonishment found this morning that it had been deleted and binned.


I discovered that my post had been the subject of much disagreement after being copied across to Facebook, that Facebook had literally demanded the removal of my post before they would allow the reposting of ANM postings on the Facebook pages.


I was informed by the senior editorial staff at ANM that this was the way things were going, and that we should just suck it up, and proceed.


Is this the future? Are we to tone things down because we might, shock, horror; actually offend someone?


Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

12 comments for “The shape of things to come!

  1. Monty
    September 5, 2018 at 1:34 am

    It isn’t that long since a Canadian woman was tormented to death in that Evin prison, they did that purely because they could. Any westerner foolish enough to venture into Iran is liable to meet with the same fate, so this one should have known she would become a hostage with no legal rights.
    I’m very much against any deflection of UK government policy at the behest of irresponsible individuals.

  2. T
    September 5, 2018 at 8:59 am

    If nobody’s offended you’re not trying hard enough

    • September 5, 2018 at 6:23 pm

      Spot on!

  3. September 5, 2018 at 9:34 am

    You don’t have freedom of speech on media platforms. They are not supplied by the government or a neutral party: the likes of Facebook, Twitter, et all are supplied by corprorations who have no mandate to be neutral, or allow freedom of speech.

    They are not forced to be fair, neutral or provide a platform for free speech by any law.

    They can close down and censor who they like. You do unfortunately have to suck it up.

    Or you can try and establish a free and fair platform in opposition to the vast amounts of money available to the other platforms to take you out. A pretty impossible job.

    Unfortunately this is the trap the internet has set those that try and speak out against the media narrative. It’s taken away the ability for alternative viewpoints, sometimes offensive ones to get an airing. You will be silenced and forced to spout happy words, think happy thoughts and nothing else (anyone remember that Twighlight Zone Episode?).

    The old method of pamphleting has long gone (visions of the Polish Photocopiers!), writing a book would be good if you could guarantee it’s availability. The same Californian Cabal control Amazon and therefore the biggest supplier of books.

    You could produce laws to force media “platforms” to allow free and fair speech, but then you would be labelled as promoting extremism, and which government would go through that?

    Western moderate conservative (small “c”) ideology is under attack, not just from the visible outwith it’s borders, not even from those immigrants within them, but it’s also under attack from the authoritarian left. They seek to control the narrative and exclude more moderate conservative viewpoints. As they have always done, the left seeks to destroy conservative Western culture, because it despises how it came to be powerful, how it stays powerful and is jealous as hell.

  4. Mudplugger
    September 5, 2018 at 11:15 am

    The core of this issue is the existence of dual-nationality – that should never be allowed in any circumstances.
    If anyone applies for British nationality, it should be a precondition that any other nationality will be discarded immediately – adopting any other nationality later would invalidate the British one. British nationality should not be concurrent with any other – double indemnity is not acceptable.

    That way, governments then know their responsibilities for citizens clearly, similarly no rogue government could play hostage-games simply because someone has chosen split loyalties, which is evidently the case here.

    There would also be an interesting clear-out in our political classes if such a rule were imposed. Australia has the right idea on this one.

    • ScotchedEarth
      September 5, 2018 at 7:05 pm

      There would also be an interesting clear-out in our political classes if such a rule were imposed. Australia has the right idea on this one.
      I was completely with you, Mudplugger, until you wrote that.
      What you refer to—a Canberra court’s decision to interpret s.44 of the 1901 Australian constitution in a way that neither its authors nor the British Parliament that enacted it ever intended—is only a solid refutation of the notion that ‘constitutions’(*) and ‘bills of rights’ will in any way get us out of our sorry mess.
      (* We’ve got one anyway, albeit one not written down tidily in a single document for it to be more easily ignored; our constitution is composed of documents such as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights(†), Case Law and convention.
      († Yes, we’ve one of those too: 1689; and the Yank one was inspired by it to the point of their 8A being a near verbatim copy of the ‘excessive bail’ clause.)

      It is perfectly fair for Australia to modify its requirements for its Parliamentary members in the light of our 21st Century world being far different from the early 20th—but it should do so according to the terms of its Constitution; that they have circumvented it in this manner reveals that ‘constitutions’ and ‘bills of rights’ are worth less than bogpaper while not being as useful.

      Hilariously, it appears that it is not even Australia that determines who is eligible to stand for their Parliament but other nations, as it hinges on other countries’ citizenship eligibility criteria, not Australia’s. As Mark Steyn amusingly wrote: ‘Kim Jong-un could simply pronounce all seven billion people on the planet North Korean Overseas Citizens, and there’d be no one on earth allowed to stand for election in Australia.’

      And what clear-out has there been in Australia? One of them caught in this net was Stephen Parry, a born and bred ““““Australian”””” (or so he thought), son of a Brit who immigrated and served in the Australian military; he himself was a policeman in Tasmania from 1977 to 1986 (when police were still police and not SJWs in uniform). While he does not appear especially notable as a politician, he doesn’t seem that awful either—he’s certainly no Aussie Corbyn.
      Another casualty was Malcolm Roberts, a son of a Welsh coalminer; a sceptic on Global Warming and opposed Same Sex Marriage.
      Fiona Nash, another one: daughter of a Brit, she also opposed SSM and leaned towards GW-scepticism.

      The only clearing out going on is of the Anglos—just another step in the ongoing de-Angloisation of Australia and other Commonwealth countries, as part of the ongoing war on ethnic Europeans.

      • ScotchedEarth
        September 6, 2018 at 12:12 am

        Regarding the rest of your comment, Mudplugger, while I am in agreement, the effect of your idea might be more symbolic than practical—which does not make it any less important: we should try and educate people that being a British subject is a prize to be neither lightly diminished nor surrendered.

        A measure that could have slightly more of an effect is removing that legacy of our long-gone Empire where citizens of at least 53 foreign countries are allowed to vote in all our elections and referenda, few of whom either reciprocate (e.g. Australia, Canada) or are recognisable democracies (e.g. Zimbabwe)—some are not even former British colonies (e.g. Mozambique, Rwanda).

        It is difficult estimating how much of an effect restricting the vote to British subjects would have (Migration Watch estimated more than 960,000 Commonwealth residents able to vote in 2013, and there is the Irish on top of that; while the 2017 GE saw 16 seats with a majority of <200). It might be again as much symbolic as practical: decisions affecting our country’s direction and future should be restricted to those who are at least sufficiently committed to our country to obtain citizenship, and ideally to those with a born and bred appreciation of our history and intending remaining here.

    • September 6, 2018 at 1:56 am

      I am an Australian. I am also British. I have dual nationality.

  5. Lord T
    September 5, 2018 at 11:57 am

    In which case ANM is pretty fucking useless. Where is the alternative component of the news?

    Well, it was worth a try but another failure.

  6. Pcar
    September 5, 2018 at 10:05 pm

    @Mike C

    Dozy woman got what was expected – Tim Newman @ Desertsun has covered it.

    BoJo was correct.

    She worked for BBC Int journalist training, now for Thompson Reuters Foundation (Int journalist training).

    Arrested on departure – not arrival – after Iran observed what she was doing.

    As for ANM – weak, despicable sellout. Alt no longer applies

    • Pcar
      September 6, 2018 at 10:21 pm

      AltNewsMedia is an alternative to legacy media. Dissatisfaction and trust in the mainstream and Alt media is at an all-time low. We have no political affiliation, we only wish to speak about the issues facing the world today. We do not associate with the alt-right or the alt-left. Our intention is to always report honestly and welcome debate from all sides. Challenging views we may not agree with is fundamental in a free and open society, but not welcome here.


  7. Bill
    September 8, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    Say whatever you like ‘off record’ and it is indeed free speech. Say it on record and it isn’t. The recording belongs to the recorder who is free to ‘do with it’ what they will like say ‘stitch the speaker up’ for example. Pretty simple really.

Comments are closed.