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
125 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
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.