Who can forget chief hypocrite Vance, attacking UK free speech. Laughable really, looking at the rising fascism back in the US.
British man sacked for criticising Trump
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Rent free.
For those able to take off their partisan blinders, there is an interesting story here about free speech. I have managed to pull together small fragments of the deleted posts to recreate the introduction to another of the posts. Is this really the sort of thing which should make a government 'hopping mad'. I see an intelligent man, who is a very good writer, giving an even handed analysis. Nothing here is controversial, and it is a view which many Trump supporters celebrate:
I’m not aware of a business whose goals include unquestioning acceptance by their employees of Trumpf and all he stands for.
You can’t sack yourself
Many professionals in the public eye express strong views on ****ter and facebook……and this forum
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,598
- Reaction score
- 6,157
- Country
They do so with reasonable anonymity, though every single person can be traced for civil or criminal action.
In a world of face book etc people have a right to a private life and the expression of personal opinions. This guy has been hunted down by Trumpf’s goons.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,598
- Reaction score
- 6,157
- Country
It's a no go area on Linkedin and I am certain he would have had mandatory social media training, like everyone who ever worked for a company of more than a handful of employees.
Any opinions you express reflect on you and your employer. It is a business connection / professional networking platform.
It was an "advert" that backfired.
It wasn't an opinion piece. It wasn't even critical.
It was an even handed article discussing Trump's communication strategy and how he has managed to dominate the news. Written by a communications expert. Not everyone uses Linked in like you.
The problem he ran into was a Trump administration trying to prevent free speech.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,598
- Reaction score
- 6,157
- Country
It was critical almost-journalism at best. Openning with a compliment or apparent support before delivering criticism is a proven technique to create the impression that you have given it an unbiased review. Its one of your favourite techniques.
In other words, objective, fair and balanced. I have no problem with being even handed and seeing both sides. You, on the other hand, are one of the most partisan posters on here. So much so that you can no longer appreciate rational objective comments.
Here is a link to a similar article on linkedin. There are many others. Nothing wrong with what the sacked guy wrote. It is just that Trump can't stand anything written about him which isn't obsequious. This is common amongst autocrats who want to shut down free speech:
How to succeed in the Trump environment
Donald Trump floods the airwaves with noise enabling him to get a few things achieved that meets his overriding desire to be seen to be a success. His strategy is to overwhelm the opposition—distracting, dividing, and exhausting them.
www.linkedin.com
Anyway, to try to bring it back to the important issue.
This was nothing to do with the American organisation who Hanover were representing. That organisation had no problems with any of the sacked guy's articles. It was the US government who insisted they take the action.
For all the attempted distractions, that is what we should be focusing on. An autocratic government trying to shut down any commentary that doesn't show total obsequiousness to the leader. For those following the bigger picture, this is just another example of a multi point attack on free speech. Television companies are threatened with the loss of their broadcast rights if certain shows aren't cancelled. Lawyers who support claimants against Trump's policies are sanctioned. Opposition politicians are prosecuted for criticising certain Trump policies. Nothing like this has happened before.
This was nothing to do with the American organisation who Hanover were representing. That organisation had no problems with any of the sacked guy's articles. It was the US government who insisted they take the action.
For all the attempted distractions, that is what we should be focusing on. An autocratic government trying to shut down any commentary that doesn't show total obsequiousness to the leader. For those following the bigger picture, this is just another example of a multi point attack on free speech. Television companies are threatened with the loss of their broadcast rights if certain shows aren't cancelled. Lawyers who support claimants against Trump's policies are sanctioned. Opposition politicians are prosecuted for criticising certain Trump policies. Nothing like this has happened before.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,598
- Reaction score
- 6,157
- Country
That's the problem. You think your opinion is rational, objective, fair and balanced. By definition anyone who disagrees is unable to appreciate rational, objective comments and must be partisan.
imagine, if its actually the other way around.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,598
- Reaction score
- 6,157
- Country
great exampleHere is a link to a similar article on linkedin. There are many others. Nothing wrong with what the sacked guy wrote. It is just that Trump can't stand anything written about him which isn't obsequious. This is common amongst autocrats who want to shut down free speech:
How to succeed in the Trump environment
Donald Trump floods the airwaves with noise enabling him to get a few things achieved that meets his overriding desire to be seen to be a success. His strategy is to overwhelm the opposition—distracting, dividing, and exhausting them.
She's self employed
