nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 9.52am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Oh dear. Not dealing with the point again. Another ad hominem argument. Well done you.
As an aside, anyone else notice that a) Ian Duncan Smith has redefined what child poverty is to lower the figures and b)Iain Duncan Smith is trying to erase the words 'child poverty' from the Child Poverty Act - Mirror Online [Link] (Share from CM Browser)
Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 9.58am)
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 10.43am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
I really dislike the idea of adopting Orwellian images in a utterly disproportionate way. Provided the legal statutes of Free Speech are retained (ie that which does not instigate, call for or incite criminal action) then its not going to be a problem.
Plus of course there is recourse to the Human Rights Act in defense. The idea of free speech is a myth anyhow, because speech that has impact isn't free, its remarkably expensive and the property of an elite in society anyhow.
Freedom of Expression and Speech must not become a situation as in America, where in it has become a right by which persecution, hatred and prejudice by majority groups become justified in law.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| Catfish Burgess Hill 22 Jul 15 10.46am |
|
|
We have had thought crime for years. How else would you describe the stick of unconscious racism that liberals have been flagellating themselves with?
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 10.48am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 10.51am |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
Are you talking about the human rights act that the tories want to pull out from?
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 11.23am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 10.51am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
Are you talking about the human rights act that the tories want to pull out from?
Yes, the one that terrorist spokesmen use to prolong their stay in this country while continuing to peach their hatred - it's their 'right' you know as human beings.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 11.26am |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 11.32am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
I suspect that you didn't read the article (shock there) otherwise you would know that Cameron went beyond terrorism as extremism. He wants to curb those that oppose government ideology by effectively silencing critics.
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 11.38am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 10.51am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
Are you talking about the human rights act that the tories want to pull out from?
Not this election they won't. They might want to, but legally its almost impossible for them to do so, as far too much UK law ties into the act now. Far too much English legal precedent has been set by the European Court and the ECHR that its largely pointless leaving it anyhow (bearing in mind its been ratifying UK law in its various forms, and serving as the court of appeal, since the 1950s).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 11.41am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 11.32am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
I suspect that you didn't read the article (shock there) otherwise you would know that Cameron went beyond terrorism as extremism. He wants to curb those that oppose government ideology by effectively silencing critics.
Which wouldn't be viable, there is no way the UK judiciary would accept prosecution on the basis of oppositional stance. It would necessitate a connection to a criminal offence, although it might be flexible enough to affect those who hide behind the technicalities.
Personal I don't agree with the law, but its a stretch to think it will be anything beyond being a 'popularity policy' that barely ever is used.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 11.46am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 12.50pm |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 12.53pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class.
Explain further please.
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 1.17pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.53pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class.
Explain further please.
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher.
The implementation of New Left Socialist economics would have the same result as all the other failed Socialist economies where working people have standards of living immeasurably worse than elsewhere. These working people would also of course be subjected to repressive measures when they attempt to find ways round the failing system or try to flee to countries that are not Socialist.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
 dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 22 Jul 15 1.19pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 9.52am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Oh dear. Not dealing with the point again. Another ad hominem argument. Well done you.
As an aside, anyone else notice that a) Ian Duncan Smith has redefined what child poverty is to lower the figures and b)Iain Duncan Smith is trying to erase the words 'child poverty' from the Child Poverty Act - Mirror Online [Link] (Share from CM Browser)
Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 9.58am)
Nick how can you (with a straight face) quote the "tory graph" as Tory propaganda bollicks, and then in the next breath quote the Mirror (Labour rag) as an absolute bastion of truth.
Goes back to my previous comment.
"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.'"
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 1.31pm |
|
Quote dannyh at 22 Jul 2015 1.19pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 9.52am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Oh dear. Not dealing with the point again. Another ad hominem argument. Well done you.
As an aside, anyone else notice that a) Ian Duncan Smith has redefined what child poverty is to lower the figures and b)Iain Duncan Smith is trying to erase the words 'child poverty' from the Child Poverty Act - Mirror Online [Link] (Share from CM Browser)
Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 9.58am)
Nick how can you (with a straight face) quote the "tory graph" as Tory propaganda bollicks, and then in the next breath quote the Mirror (Labour rag) as an absolute bastion of truth.
Goes back to my previous comment.
Where did I say it was propaganda bollocks? My point was that if they are saying it's too far.
Whether it's the mirror or not, IDS has changed the name of the bill which is a fact not opinion. The pro Tory press made little fuss of it.
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 1.36pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher.
Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration
Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc.
No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 1.43pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class.
Political Correctness and Free Speech are liberal ideologies, not socialist ones. They are not left wing by any stretch of the imagination and as you'd like to point out, Socialist countries generally don't place a high value on free speech or freedom of expression.
Infact, the ideals of Freedom of Speech really are a product of liberal capitalism, having preserved more through the US constitution back into Western Capitalism, than being a product of a left wing conspiracy. Euopean nations were very slow on the uptake of freedom of speech as a concept. In fact in UK law it was 'enshrined' until 1998 under the human rights act.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 1.55pm |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher.
Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration
Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc.
No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people.
Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you".
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 1.57pm |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.43pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
[Link]
(from the ever so Torygraph)
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.
Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)
Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.
Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.
Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.
So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live.
Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it.
However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting.
What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class.
Political Correctness and Free Speech are liberal ideologies, not socialist ones. They are not left wing by any stretch of the imagination and as you'd like to point out, Socialist countries generally don't place a high value on free speech or freedom of expression.
Infact, the ideals of Freedom of Speech really are a product of liberal capitalism, having preserved more through the US constitution back into Western Capitalism, than being a product of a left wing conspiracy. Euopean nations were very slow on the uptake of freedom of speech as a concept. In fact in UK law it was 'enshrined' until 1998 under the human rights act.
I agree with all this - what are we arguing about?!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|