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
5491 readers
122 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
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.
'Timing' is yet another element you've raised because it's convenient. In fact you have no idea when the journalist who uncovered this particular lie did so, you're simply assuming something underhand because it suits you to do so, not because there's any evidence thereof.
The evidence is the pattern, the fact that it has become so predictable.
The pattern is that journalists investigate politicians and call out their lies. Increasingly, the pattern with Polanski himself is that he keeps lying about things.
To believe otherwise, I have to believe there's some 'correct' proportion of scrutiny for each politician, that it's currently not correct and that you know what the correct proportion is. I see no reason to believe most of that. In your case, it's obvious you think the correct amount of scrutiny for Polanski is 'none', a condition that should never be satisfied.
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. 👍
He isn't going to be leading anything other than thr conga line to the dole queue.