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
5488 readers
107 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
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.