Socialism in action

Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

derben 12 Jun 15 4.15pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 2.02pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 1.35pm The point is, you would think that the likes of tux, nick and legal, would surely think that the Socialist policies of the Khmer Rouge are just what was needed, and is indeed needed here now. Their Socialist regime stated that Cambodia should be a classless society of "perfect harmony" and that private ownership was "the source of egoist feelings and consequently social injustices." (Could be tux, nick or legal speaking). They made Cambodia a cashless nation; the government confiscated all currency. Shops closed, and workers received their pay in the form of food rations, because there was no money in circulation. The economic life described by foreign diplomats, by Western visitors, and by Cambodian refugees in Thai, state that Phnom Penh became a ghost town of only about 10,000 people. There were no shops, post offices, telephones, or telegraph services. Frequent shortages of water and of electricity occurred in all urban areas. Yet this total state control of absolutely everything is just what tux, nick and legal pine after. Surely their policies should have ushered in a glorious, egalitarian new age? I don't know if they had an NHS, but as they arrested, tortured and eventually killed all professionals and intellectuals, I guess there must have been a shortage of doctors. Almost everyone with an education, people who understood a foreign language and even people who required glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they spent too much time reading books instead of working) were purged. But of course, we will now be told it was all the fault of the USA and the wicked Capitalists. If it wasn't for them, Comrade Pol Pot, would have built a utopia; after all his economic strategy was Socialist to the core. Edited by derben (12 Jun 2015 1.37pm) Blimey. That's an olympian level of "bonkerness". Quite apart from the fact that TUX, N Gusset and I do not share identical views (other than firmly not agreeing with your's,I suspect ) ,your point is about as rational as suggesting that, since your views (leave where you live if people of a different religion or ethnicity,or race or move in),placing you as a "rightist" ,means you should surely be an admirer of Hitler and his regime and all their works and actions. Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 2.14pm) I said I would move 'at a certain level', ie: 'lots'. Hard to find posts were you three do disagree. I have not suggested you support Pol Pot' killings, but aspects of his general Socialist outlook and economic policy of state control of the economy. I don't consider myself a 'rightist', in the past I have been a member of the Labour party and a trade union branch secretary. Preferring to live with people of one's own language, race, religion and culture does not make one a Nazi, otherwise the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford would all be Fascists.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 4.15pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 2.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 1.35pm

The point is, you would think that the likes of tux, nick and legal, would surely think that the Socialist policies of the Khmer Rouge are just what was needed, and is indeed needed here now.

Their Socialist regime stated that Cambodia should be a classless society of "perfect harmony" and that private ownership was "the source of egoist feelings and consequently social injustices." (Could be tux, nick or legal speaking). They made Cambodia a cashless nation; the government confiscated all currency. Shops closed, and workers received their pay in the form of food rations, because there was no money in circulation. The economic life described by foreign diplomats, by Western visitors, and by Cambodian refugees in Thai, state that Phnom Penh became a ghost town of only about 10,000 people. There were no shops, post offices, telephones, or telegraph services. Frequent shortages of water and of electricity occurred in all urban areas.

Yet this total state control of absolutely everything is just what tux, nick and legal pine after. Surely their policies should have ushered in a glorious, egalitarian new age?

I don't know if they had an NHS, but as they arrested, tortured and eventually killed all professionals and intellectuals, I guess there must have been a shortage of doctors. Almost everyone with an education, people who understood a foreign language and even people who required glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they spent too much time reading books instead of working) were purged.

But of course, we will now be told it was all the fault of the USA and the wicked Capitalists. If it wasn't for them, Comrade Pol Pot, would have built a utopia; after all his economic strategy was Socialist to the core.

Edited by derben (12 Jun 2015 1.37pm)

Blimey. That's an olympian level of "bonkerness".

Quite apart from the fact that TUX, N Gusset and I do not share identical views (other than firmly not agreeing with your's,I suspect ) ,your point is about as rational as suggesting that, since your views (leave where you live if people of a different religion or ethnicity,or race or move in),placing you as a "rightist" ,means you should surely be an admirer of Hitler and his regime and all their works and actions.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 2.14pm)

I said I would move 'at a certain level', ie: 'lots'. Hard to find posts were you three do disagree. I have not suggested you support Pol Pot' killings, but aspects of his general Socialist outlook and economic policy of state control of the economy. I don't consider myself a 'rightist', in the past I have been a member of the Labour party and a trade union branch secretary. Preferring to live with people of one's own language, race, religion and culture does not make one a Nazi, otherwise the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford would all be Fascists.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 12 Jun 15 4.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Jun 2015 3.05pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 1.35pm The point is, you would think that the likes of tux, nick and legal, would surely think that the Socialist policies of the Khmer Rouge are just what was needed, and is indeed needed here now. Their Socialist regime stated that Cambodia should be a classless society of "perfect harmony" and that private ownership was "the source of egoist feelings and consequently social injustices." (Could be tux, nick or legal speaking). They made Cambodia a cashless nation; the government confiscated all currency. Shops closed, and workers received their pay in the form of food rations, because there was no money in circulation. The economic life described by foreign diplomats, by Western visitors, and by Cambodian refugees in Thai, state that Phnom Penh became a ghost town of only about 10,000 people. There were no shops, post offices, telephones, or telegraph services. Frequent shortages of water and of electricity occurred in all urban areas. Yet this total state control of absolutely everything is just what tux, nick and legal pine after. Surely their policies should have ushered in a glorious, egalitarian new age? I don't know if they had an NHS, but as they arrested, tortured and eventually killed all professionals and intellectuals, I guess there must have been a shortage of doctors. Almost everyone with an education, people who understood a foreign language and even people who required glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they spent too much time reading books instead of working) were purged. But of course, we will now be told it was all the fault of the USA and the wicked Capitalists. If it wasn't for them, Comrade Pol Pot, would have built a utopia; after all his economic strategy was Socialist to the core. Edited by derben (12 Jun 2015 1.37pm) No it was the Khemer Rouge that did that, its just that after Communist Vietnam invaded and liberated the country from the tyranny of the Khemer Rouge that the US seemed to be keen to support them, despite the news coming out of Cambodia at the time. China also were big supporters of the Khemer Rouge. I accept what you have said Jamie. Your analysis is (as usual)fair and objective. It is still telling though how most of these Socialist experiments end in bloodbaths (and often start with them too).
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 4.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Jun 2015 3.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 1.35pm

The point is, you would think that the likes of tux, nick and legal, would surely think that the Socialist policies of the Khmer Rouge are just what was needed, and is indeed needed here now.

Yet this total state control of absolutely everything is just what tux, nick and legal pine after. Surely their policies should have ushered in a glorious, egalitarian new age?

Edited by derben (12 Jun 2015 1.37pm)

No it was the Khemer Rouge that did that, its just that after Communist Vietnam invaded and liberated the country from the tyranny of the Khemer Rouge that the US seemed to be keen to support them, despite the news coming out of Cambodia at the time.

China also were big supporters of the Khemer Rouge.

I accept what you have said Jamie. Your analysis is (as usual)fair and objective. It is still telling though how most of these Socialist experiments end in bloodbaths (and often start with them too).

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Jun 15 6.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 4.15pm I said I would move 'at a certain level', ie: 'lots'. Hard to find posts were you three do disagree. I have not suggested you support Pol Pot' killings, but aspects of his general Socialist outlook and economic policy of state control of the economy. I don't consider myself a 'rightist', in the past I have been a member of the Labour party and a trade union branch secretary. Preferring to live with people of one's own language, race, religion and culture does not make one a Nazi, otherwise the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford would all be Fascists. I think you will find,just as examples,that TUX and I disagreed strongly about the Jeremy Clarkson affair, and also whether it was worth voting.I don't agree fully with him about the Federal Reserve, and I was not in complete agreement with Nick G about the SNP.I'm not a supporter of TUSC. Though I don't demonise them. The only reason you think of us as "one",I would respectfully suggest,is your inability to distinguish between the views of anyone you consider to be of the "vaguely left" (anywhere left that is of mid-centre) and to lump everyone in together,in a way you rightly (no pun intended) object to where the views of you and others are on the same very general side of the sprectrum. Of course your views about not living with "the other" don't automatically make you a follower of Hitler. That was exactly the point.My views don't automatically make me some kind of admirer of the Khmer Rouge regime or any part of it. The fact you may have once been active in a Union and a member of the Labour Party doesn't mean you cant be extremely right wing now.You say you aren't. That's up to you.I doubt many "objective" people would place your views on moving out if people of a different religion/ethnicity or race move in other than on the "right hand side" politically of the spectrum of opinion on the matter of being willing to live with people of a differing race or religion to you. You keep praising Jamie M for being objective.Why not try having a stab at it too? Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.21pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Jun 15 6.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 4.15pm

I think you will find,just as examples,that TUX and I disagreed strongly about the Jeremy Clarkson affair, and also whether it was worth voting.I don't agree fully with him about the Federal Reserve, and I was not in complete agreement with Nick G about the SNP.I'm not a supporter of TUSC. Though I don't demonise them.

The only reason you think of us as "one",I would respectfully suggest,is your inability to distinguish between the views of anyone you consider to be of the "vaguely left" (anywhere left that is of mid-centre) and to lump everyone in together,in a way you rightly (no pun intended) object to where the views of you and others are on the same very general side of the sprectrum.

Of course your views about not living with "the other" don't automatically make you a follower of Hitler. That was exactly the point.My views don't automatically make me some kind of admirer of the Khmer Rouge regime or any part of it.

The fact you may have once been active in a Union and a member of the Labour Party doesn't mean you cant be extremely right wing now.You say you aren't. That's up to you.I doubt many "objective" people would place your views on moving out if people of a different religion/ethnicity or race move in other than on the "right hand side" politically of the spectrum of opinion on the matter of being willing to live with people of a differing race or religion to you.

You keep praising Jamie M for being objective.Why not try having a stab at it too?

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.21pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 12 Jun 15 6.26pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.16pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 4.15pm I said I would move 'at a certain level', ie: 'lots'. Hard to find posts were you three do disagree. I have not suggested you support Pol Pot' killings, but aspects of his general Socialist outlook and economic policy of state control of the economy. I don't consider myself a 'rightist', in the past I have been a member of the Labour party and a trade union branch secretary. Preferring to live with people of one's own language, race, religion and culture does not make one a Nazi, otherwise the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford would all be Fascists. I think you will find,just as examples,that TUX and I disagreed strongly about the Jeremy Clarkson affair, and also whether it was worth voting.I don't agree fully with him about the Federal Reserve, and I was not in complete agreement with Nick G about the SNP's committment to anti-austerity.I'm not a supporter of TUSC. Though I don't demonise them. The only reason you think of us as "one",I would respectfully suggest,is your inability to distinguish between the views of anyone you consider to be of the "vaguely left" (anywhere left that is of mid-centre) and to lump everyone in together,in a way you rightly (no pun intended) object to where the views of you and others are on the same very general part of the sprectrum. Of course your views about not living with "the other" don't automatically make you a follower of Hitler. That's exactly the point.My views don't automatically make me some kind of admirer of the Khmer Rouge regime or any part of it. The fact you may have once been active in a Union and a member of the Labour Party doesn't mean you cant be extremely right wing now.You say you aren't. That's up to you.I doubt many "objective" people would place your views on moving out if people of a different religion/ethnicity or race move in other than on the "right hand side" politically of the spectrum of opinion on the matter of being willing to live with people of a differing race or religion to you. You keep praising Jamie M for being objective.Why not try having a stab at it too? Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.19pm) So, you do consider the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford right wing then, and I am right wing because of where I choose to live. Perhaps we should introduce quotas of different groups that have to live in certain parts of the country; perhaps have some 'Roma' living in the gardens of one in ten houses? I don't dismiss the views of all who disagree with me; as I have said I respect Jamie's, who is quite likely "vaguely left". I would say I am fairly dismissive of new left/lib politically correct twerps and hard-left groups like TUSC. So, I shall split the unholy trinity, with you grouped in the former, and nick and tux in the latter.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 6.26pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 4.15pm

I think you will find,just as examples,that TUX and I disagreed strongly about the Jeremy Clarkson affair, and also whether it was worth voting.I don't agree fully with him about the Federal Reserve, and I was not in complete agreement with Nick G about the SNP's committment to anti-austerity.I'm not a supporter of TUSC. Though I don't demonise them.

Of course your views about not living with "the other" don't automatically make you a follower of Hitler. That's exactly the point.My views don't automatically make me some kind of admirer of the Khmer Rouge regime or any part of it.

You keep praising Jamie M for being objective.Why not try having a stab at it too?

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.19pm)

So, you do consider the populations of Brixton, Tower Hamlets and Bradford right wing then, and I am right wing because of where I choose to live. Perhaps we should introduce quotas of different groups that have to live in certain parts of the country; perhaps have some 'Roma' living in the gardens of one in ten houses?

I don't dismiss the views of all who disagree with me; as I have said I respect Jamie's, who is quite likely "vaguely left". I would say I am fairly dismissive of new left/lib politically correct twerps and hard-left groups like TUSC. So, I shall split the unholy trinity, with you grouped in the former, and nick and tux in the latter.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Jun 15 6.34pm
Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Jun 15 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 12 Jun 15 6.55pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm) You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 6.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Jun 15 7.11pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm) You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression. How so? Examples? I thought it was the Tories that wanted to curb free speech? Didn't the last government put through a bill that declared 2 or more people together an assembly that can be broken up by the police. BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong. I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Jun 15 7.11pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

How so? Examples?
I thought it was the Tories that wanted to curb free speech? Didn't the last government put through a bill that declared 2 or more people together an assembly that can be broken up by the police.

BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong.
I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 12 Jun 15 7.23pm
Quote DanH at 12 Jun 2015 9.28am Yes, well done. Use a human tragedy for petty political point scoring on a football message board. Congratulations, you've won Friday. Attachment: homo.jpg (54.45Kb) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 12 Jun 15 7.23pm

Quote DanH at 12 Jun 2015 9.28am

Yes, well done. Use a human tragedy for petty political point scoring on a football message board.

Congratulations, you've won Friday.

Attachment: homo.jpg (54.45Kb)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Jun 15 7.25pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.26pm Perhaps we should introduce quotas of different groups that have to live in certain parts of the country; perhaps have some 'Roma' living in the gardens of one in ten houses? I know just the family to kick things off and improve your small town/village no end. Friend of mine,MBA degree, really nice guy,travelled widely,lovely wife and kid, entrepreneurial, very tidy and considerate,sense of humour,very tolerant of others and not a TUSC supporter. Perfect family to raise the tone of the village,no? Oh,I forgot,he's from from Macedonia,is Roma and a muslim. So,of course, that would put any reasonable non right wing person off from having them as neighbours,so on second thoughts perhaps won't suggest to him he moves down to your neck of the woods
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Jun 15 7.25pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.26pm

Perhaps we should introduce quotas of different groups that have to live in certain parts of the country; perhaps have some 'Roma' living in the gardens of one in ten houses?

I know just the family to kick things off and improve your small town/village no end.

Friend of mine,MBA degree, really nice guy,travelled widely,lovely wife and kid, entrepreneurial, very tidy and considerate,sense of humour,very tolerant of others and not a TUSC supporter.

Perfect family to raise the tone of the village,no?

Oh,I forgot,he's from from Macedonia,is Roma and a muslim. So,of course, that would put any reasonable non right wing person off from having them as neighbours,so on second thoughts perhaps won't suggest to him he moves down to your neck of the woods

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 12 Jun 15 7.27pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm) You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression. How so? Examples? I thought it was the Tories that wanted to curb free speech? Didn't the last government put through a bill that declared 2 or more people together an assembly that can be broken up by the police. BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong. I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though. Totally agree with that. As for examples: 2013, an 85-year-old woman was arrested, handcuffed and subsequently fined for saying to some people 'go back to your own country'. Another example that quickly springs to mind is John Terry being fined and banned by a football kangaroo court for using the word 'black'. There are many other cases of so called 'racially aggravated' prosecutions.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 7.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong.
I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though.

Totally agree with that.

As for examples: 2013, an 85-year-old woman was arrested, handcuffed and subsequently fined for saying to some people 'go back to your own country'. Another example that quickly springs to mind is John Terry being fined and banned by a football kangaroo court for using the word 'black'. There are many other cases of so called 'racially aggravated' prosecutions.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Jun 15 8.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.27pm Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm) You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression. How so? Examples? I thought it was the Tories that wanted to curb free speech? Didn't the last government put through a bill that declared 2 or more people together an assembly that can be broken up by the police. BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong. I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though. Totally agree with that. As for examples: 2013, an 85-year-old woman was arrested, handcuffed and subsequently fined for saying to some people 'go back to your own country'. Another example that quickly springs to mind is John Terry being fined and banned by a football kangaroo court for using the word 'black'. There are many other cases of so called 'racially aggravated' prosecutions. The Terry thing has been done to death. He should have just used the word C**t without preceding it with black. In using 'black' he stepped over what I would term as a socially acceptable boundary.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Jun 15 8.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

Totally agree with that.

The Terry thing has been done to death. He should have just used the word C**t without preceding it with black. In using 'black' he stepped over what I would term as a socially acceptable boundary.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 12 Jun 15 8.09pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 8.02pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.27pm Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to... I am of a different religion to you.If you moved out of your village/small town because I moved in,just because of my religion (as opposed to what I'm like as a person) yes I'd think you right wing (and a complete word associated with self-administered sexual satisfaction).You would no doubt think of yourself as a reasonable non-right wing bloke.You are entitled to your opinion,just as I,most certainly, am entitled to mine Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm) You are of a different religion are you; which one I wonder? As I have said a couple of times, I would move out at a certain point - when the character of the area had changed to such an extent that I would prefer to live in an area that still had the characteristics that I would prefer to live with. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am all for people being able to express their opinions. It is the new left/lib politically correct establishment that increasingly seeks to curb such expression. How so? Examples? I thought it was the Tories that wanted to curb free speech? Didn't the last government put through a bill that declared 2 or more people together an assembly that can be broken up by the police. BTW. I'm all for entrepreneurs and actually believe the state controlling everything would be wrong. I do believe that essential and public services should be state or local government run though. Totally agree with that. As for examples: 2013, an 85-year-old woman was arrested, handcuffed and subsequently fined for saying to some people 'go back to your own country'. Another example that quickly springs to mind is John Terry being fined and banned by a football kangaroo court for using the word 'black'. There are many other cases of so called 'racially aggravated' prosecutions. The Terry thing has been done to death. He should have just used the word Ct without preceding it with black. In using 'black' he stepped over what I would term as a socially acceptable boundary.** Not the point - it is a good example of the new politically correct establishment curbing free speech.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

12 Jun 15 8.09pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 8.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 7.11pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 6.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.34pm

Nick G and Tux are well capable of answering for themselves if they want to...

Edited by legaleagle (12 Jun 2015 6.44pm)

Totally agree with that.

The Terry thing has been done to death. He should have just used the word C**t without preceding it with black. In using 'black' he stepped over what I would term as a socially acceptable boundary.

Not the point - it is a good example of the new politically correct establishment curbing free speech.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Socialism in action

Site Map

Sponsors