22
Zack Polanski says he was wrong to call himself a Red Cross spokesperson
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
22 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
5492 readers
82 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hit pieces on this man predictably ramping up now. The billionaires and their cronies in the media are worried.
You cannot believe that it's okay for politicians to lie or that the press shouldn't report it when they do.
Zack Polanski faced an absolute battering for retweeting a pretty tame tweet, including being told by the PM that he's not fit to lead a political party. In the same week Nigel Farage said he'd only send immigrants to green voting areas if he gets in. Which is worse, and which got more attention? Why?
Not only are you indulging in whataboutery, you can't even focus on what your man's done wrong this week. I think if you felt his behaviour was actually defensible, you'd defend it, rather than trying to change the subject.
The subject is that the attacks on this politician are ramping up this week. My comment was germane to the context.
I think his behaviour is defensible. It is a single word that was incorrect, there's zero tangible effect, it was ~~two~~ four years ago, and he has admitted he was wrong, apologised and taken it down.
If other politicians were as straight as he is, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A rule for thee but not for me.
The media should be heavily regulated so that the news treats both sides equally. But it is not, we have subtle propagandist instruments that work through omission, distraction and rage bait.
Taken as a whole, corporate fascists get cake and blessings whilst anyone standing up for workers rights gets the stocks.
If you don't see this you're either naive and need to do a bit of reflecting on this, or you are not what you seem on first glance.
Which is it sir?
No, the media should be regulated to treat both sides fairly. Both sides are not equal. If one side is lying and the other isn't, the media is not obliged to pretend both are doing it.
Not what I meant, have another read.
May not have been what you meant but its what you said. Word choice is important. The words you used were the opposite of what you claim to have meant.
How do you know about corporate fascists and what they do, other than through the media? It's through the media that I know that Nigel Farage is corrupt, that Boris Johnson is a serial liar and that Keir Starmer broke most of his ten leadership pledges. Polanski is getting the exact same treatment as those figures: he lied and he is now being held accountable for his lies.
You've entirely missed my point.
Its all about proportion. The amount of criticism levied at different political entities is directly proportional to how right wing they are on end and how pro workers rights they are on the other. The more corporate they are the easier time they get.
And this makes sense. Why? Because corporations own most news and even public spaces like the BBC it has been stacked with cronies.
I have not missed your point, I just disagree with you.
You can leaven this rhetoric with objective-sounding phrases like 'directly proportional' but it's entirely subjective. In defending Polanski's lying with whataboutery, you have shown that the standard you actually hold is that politicians you agree with should be allowed to lie because you falsely believe that other politicians get away with this behaviour which, as I have shown, is not true. Even if it were true, it would not justify Polanski's lying, because two wrongs do not make a right.
I have not at any point justified Polanski's lie. Please don't put words in my mouth.
You want everyone to look at this article with zero overall context. To pretend that the media game isn't rigged and that its a level playing field.
I on the other hand encourage everyone to look at this for what it in all likelihood is. What the last 30 years of political history has shown us time and again. A stitch up of a pro workers rights candidate at a crucial voting moment. The manipulation is blatent to me because its happened so many times and will continue to happen well into tjr future.
Ask yourself, how many crises, how much rule breaking, how many illegal acts, how many scandals, did it take to break the Johnson government?
Contrastingly, Ed Miliband was character assassinated by a bacon sandwich.
I think it's possible you're not being entirely genuine, because you're obviously quite intelligent in the way you write. But your disregard of reasoned argument clashes with this fact.
I guess maybe that's where my naivety is; I struggle to imagine a person with such capability being so willfully blind to the obvious.
You are in fact attempting to defend him by deflecting from what he's done by raising irrelevancies.
Do you actually know the circumstances at stake here? He was asked to represent them at public events even though that wasn't something he was on the payroll for. These fuckers turned wage theft into a scandal for the victim.
You consume way too much mainstream media
You can believe that it is not okay for the press to report it selectively.
Maybe he shouldn't say or do stupid shit then.
Next up: unpaid council tax by Zacky.
He's said and done incredibly based shit.
I know it might not look like it from the outside or when you're young and excited about UK politics, but we tend to want our politicians not to simply meme through life by "saying incredibly based shit" 😉.
If Zack is going to lead the country or win a few more seats for the Greens he needs to stop shooting himself in the foot with these easy own goals.
It's entirely possible to get excited about "based shit" (LOL sorry do people still talk like that haha) and at the same time expect higher standards of our politicians and hold them to account when they fall short. Because.. you know... we're adults.
Why does that only seem to apply to left-wing politicians, and the right gets a free pass?
This isn't true. As I said in my other comment, the reason you know about the many corrupt and lying right wing politicians is that the press inform you.
Someone claiming, as Polanski does, that he's going to change politics for the better is being held to his own standards (high or not) when people point out that he's lying. It is reasonable, good and just to hold people to standards that they themselves espouse.
The scale is far, far different. If the criticism was proportional to the alleged wrongdoing, then all this about Polanski would be a needle buried deep in a haystack.
This is subjective whataboutism.
I suppose degrees of wrongness would always be technically subjective, but the difference is so stark it's not really worth arguing about; being corrupt to the core, a fascist, serial liar, or worse, are things that simply don't compare to saying something wrong on social media. The intent of the press is clear as day, they want to specifically hurt the Green Party in the local election, that's why there's this timing.
There are streams and streams of Reform racists being called out daily in the press. Does that sound like a free pass to you?
Racism and a political miss step like the above, are not comparable.
One is a heinous immoral act that questions the very core of a persons ethical framework.
The other is at worst, stupidity or miscalculation.
Racism can never be an honest mistake.
You're well within your rights to make such a judgement. Fortunately, the press has accurately reported the relative merits of Reform and the Greens, so that you can make an informed decision about your vote!
As per my other response. The scale is far different. If the criticism was proportional to the alleged wrongdoing, all this would be buried. You just can't compare racism to saying something stupid on social media.
But who's trying to equate them? Unless you're simply looking at the surface stats of how many articles are written on the subjects and not the substance of them? Do you think that if the media reports ten times of Polanski's silly words as a young adult and once on the foul bile that comes from Reform that this implies Polanski is ten times as bad? That's not how it works.
Oh I see you're doing the whole "adults in the room" Starmerite bit. Thankfully that doesn't work because people can see the complete clown show that has unfolded.
I expect basic standards from politicians like not supporting genocide, banning protest, punishing the disabled and immigrants, appointing Epstein's mates to incredibly important government positions.
But oh no Zack Polanski did a retweet or said something silly 6 years ago, better abandon all support and vote for scummy uniparty candidates.
Green surge. Cope.
Abandon all support? Is this how you've been reading these comments? Seriously? Take a step back and breathe a little, mate. Sounds like you're imagining a scenario and then reacting to it.
Politicians should be held to account and that is one of the roles of the media. That's not a controversial thing to say. Left wing, right wing, chicken wing: they should all be held to account on what they say and do. That doesn't translate to "abandon all support and vote". What kind of paranoia is this 🤣?
You're supremely naïve or intentionally being obtuse if you think the UK media class is anything but fundamentally dishonest and irresponsible. Politicians can and should be held to account; but they always get an easy ride if they favour the status quo. You can't gaslight anyone into not believing what they see and hear every single day. It's not paranoia, it's a clear pattern of behaviour. Like a bunch of negative pieces coming out practically in sync in the run up to polling day, much of which play fast and loose with the truth.
Let's see if you're brave enough to tell the class who you will be voting for.
😂 Whilst most of the country has local elections. My part does not. So no-one 😉. However you'll be very surprised to know I voted Green last time around. Why would you be surprised? Because you clearly think in black and white absolutes by the way you're replying - you're either with us or against us and any deviation will not be tolerated.
Anyways fun chatting with you.
Of course you failed to address most of my comment, because you can't refute what I said. You've got no argument, and smugness does not make up for that. If you are defending this joke of a media class, you are also a joke.
You can try the centrist "nuance" wank all you like, it's very easy to support the guy who's not an evil bastard, it's a pretty straightforward black and white decision. Materially supporting the slaughter of Palestinians, among many other things, is significantly worse than anything Polanski has done.
I'm ignoring most of your comments because you sound agitated and aren't communicating in good faith. You seem to be actively trolling the point that everyone needs to 100% agree with you or be deficient in some way. Sorry but that's a bit tiring.
You're free to have your own strong opinions on the matter but I don't have to agree with you. 👍
A billionaire's bootlicker, nice.
Your man didn't even pay his council tax living on his wee canal boat.
At least the rich pay their tax!
Totally comparable. The billions the rich aren't paying vs the council tax of one dude.
Keep on licking.