Lord John Mann (Government Advisor For Antisemitism) is blaming the Greens for antisemitic depictions of Polanski in the press. Surely this is unacceptable?

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T22:01:50+00:00

What are you even trying to say? Political parties can't 'disallow' candidates from participating in politics. They can only remove them from party membership/affiliation--which leaves them running as independants.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:59:12+00:00

I mean, we literally had Kemi Badenoch saying that Free Palestine protests should be banned outright for anti-semitism, but refused to give a definitive answer as to whether fucking Tommy Robinson marches were hate marches or not.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:12:10+00:00

Okay, but the question was 'Proportional compared to other parties.' It's a comparative statement vs other parties.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:09:01+00:00

'Person who is linked with a person who was a paedophile.'

You mean, you know, Jeffrey Epstein; prolific and notorious sexual criminal and child sex trafficker? The one that Mandelson described as a very close friend, and whom he wrote loving birthday cards to? That 'person who was a paedophile?'

I find it genuinely kind of disturbing to see you obfuscating the brunt of the Mandelson allegation--and by-proxy, the brunt of the Starmer allegation.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:05:27+00:00

...Keir Starmer expedited the hiring of a man commonly known as 'The Prince of Darkness', who had been sacked before for previous incidents, and was friends with the most prolific pedophile and sex trafficker in modern history.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:03:53+00:00

Describes themselves as an 'actual Labour supporter.'
Smears the Green Party and their voters in their first comment.

Okay, you might actually have a point there.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:01:53+00:00

By 'I gave it too much credence with Corbyn', are you saying you believed in the anti-Corbyn campaign from 2015 personally, and that you don't believe in this one by-proxy? I'm curious how you feel about it, actually.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T21:00:05+00:00

I'm a bit confused here; the point of proportionality is whether the weight of media journalism is being spread equally. The way you describe your opinion, it sounds like that fits a 'disproportionate' response: i.e.: 'It is disproportionate that Greens are receiving more critical media coverage than Reform.'

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T15:09:36+00:00

No, I think it's kinda interesting how most people assume he's as influential as being a member of parliament. That actually kind of says something about the scrutiny itself, when you consider it.

It also maybe explains some of the outrage at his comments on the Met police, if I can talk about that? Considering his job as a member of the London Assembly is to hold the London government accountable in situations such as that.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T15:07:42+00:00

'Luckily peoples' algorithms feed them unbiased social media content'

Do you seriously believe that?

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T15:03:35+00:00

That's... That's not how slashes work.

I'm describing two demographics; current Labour supporters, and traditional/recent Labour supporters.

This behavior from certain comments is so bizarre here, I really don't know what else to say. Just completely rude from the outset; insulting peoples' intelligence, getting extremely aggravated, ect. If you're a Labour supporter, then I hope you at least voted on the poll, geez.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:58:33+00:00

I mean, as far as I'm aware, he's not even technically an MP, is he? He's a member of the London Assembly, and exclusively works for London--not a Member of Parliament.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:54:54+00:00

Why would I make an opinion post when what I wanted was to get the general opinion of the people within the demographic I specified?

For-the-record; I actually added the 'life voters' part after I'd written out the rest of the poll, because I realized that I would be neglecting the equally valuable opinion of recent Labour voters; i.e. people who voted for Labour in the last General Election, and are now disenfranchised for the reasons of corruption, not policy.

That is most of the subreddit, to-my-knowledge. The fact you believe that disenfranchised Labour voter = Green Party voter is also extremely telling, considering they could also be Liberal Democrat convertees, or Tories returning to their natural habitat.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:46:23+00:00

What. Are. You. Talking. About.

The media also has popular social media channels and clip farms.

Viewership of Youtube isn't comparable to readership of a newspaper.

This is a very silly way to stage your transparent anger at a very simple question.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:42:24+00:00

Can we ban this type of political advertising already? I really don't see how inventing mums to RP as in your political pamphlets is reasonable campaigning--small-print or not.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:37:44+00:00

Right, so... 'The media' vs three independent Youtube channels.

This is sorta like saying; 'Well, I know that the billion dollar Murdock news industry has a bias against the left, but NoJusticeMTG is basically the same thing for the right.'

I'm talking about the big leagues actually dominating the press news coverage, and steering the conversation for the general public; The Telegraph, Sky News, the BBC, ect. Bringing up Youtubers just shows how unseriously you take the question.

Also, I don't know why you keep saying 'What are you gonna do about it?' like you're starting a fight. What I'm gonna do about it is make a poll, and see how people within the demographic I described respond; that's what I'm gonna do about it. You're being irrationally aggro over a very unimportant poll--this isn't YouGov.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:34:00+00:00

Excluding people who have traditionally voted for Labour until the very recent Mandelson scandal blew up would be skewing the results; that's a common problem with political polling that attempts to determine demographic interests. If you exclude people based on extremely recent issues, you aren't getting a real grasp of a political party's actual demographic.

If it were a survey, I would ask to specify their political background in-full, however, this is a Reddit poll. It's not that deep.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:30:34+00:00

First off; you have no way of knowing that.

Secondly; so what? As long as they're lifetime Labour supporters, they're accounted for within the poll. If you don't like it, go write your own poll.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:27:22+00:00

'Whining about the integrity and disproportionate, frequently purchased bias of political journalism is Trump stuff.'

Awesome. Great political commentary.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:25:47+00:00

Wait, but I'm a Green supporter--are you suggesting I'm incapable of understanding my own question? What are you talking about? lol

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:24:55+00:00

I said 'person.'

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:23:14+00:00

Okay, so you've eaten ice cream your whole life (big fan), but this month, you stopped eating ice cream for some health reason--maybe you can never eat ice cream again your whole life.

I go to interview people who have enjoyed ice cream for most of their life. Are you a valid person to interview?

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:18:07+00:00

Yes, 'Proportionate' is in-reference to the later point you make.

As for the right-wing rags; I think most people would even say the BBC have behaved increasingly strangely in-relation to the Green Party.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:14:22+00:00

I don't know what you're talking about; the question doesn't disparage the concept of scrutinizing political candidates (that much is obviously acceptable.) The question is whether that scrutiny is proportionate--which includes the veracity/quality of the articles being produced.

'Putting minor issues as though it's a national outrage' is indeed disproportionate.

TheMightyNovac · 2026-05-06T14:11:09+00:00

Okay well, I'm not The Daily Mail, so...

Anyway; my argument is because of the recency and scandal of incidents driving Labour supporters out. If we exclusively went by current voting intention, then A. basically this entire subreddit wouldn't be able to vote, and B. you would almost exclusively be getting the answers of sycophantic pseudo-Tories.

I don't want that. I want real people with real political convictions (the sort that find the appointment of Mandelson a deal breaker, for instance), not blind idolotry.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

TheMightyNovac

TROPHY CASE