You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The curious case of Count Dankula
December 14 2018 8.18pm

The curious case of Count Dankula

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 6 of 10 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

View Penge Eagle's Profile Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 21 Mar 18 8.20pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Ketteridge


Firstly he hasn't been sentenced yet and I haven't said he should be imprisoned.
Secondly, I don't like Frankie Boyle or the sex psitols the point of mentioning them is that at some points offence can be justitified for creativity.
I am not free to say and do what ever I like, I am not free to go to the Whitgift centre and shout obsecnities at the top of my voice, my local pub wouldn't be able to put hardcore p*** on the big screen over Sunday lunch time however much it might increase turnover. There are laws governing what we can and can't do which are generally social agreed but in some case enshrined in law.
I would defend Ken Livingstones right to say Hitler was a Zionist, I would defend the right of James McLean not to wear a poppy, I would defend the right of David Irving to deny the holocaust or Omar Bakri's right to call for Shari law. Personally, I would like to see these views discussed openly and on tv and the evidence they are based on tested. I consider it far better for them to be fully debated in public view then stuck away in places where it gains credibility and never fully appraised.
I won't defend the right of James McClean to go Warrington or Einniskillen shouting up the 'RA, I would not defend the right of David Irving to go to a Synagogue and wearing a comedy Hitler costume . The point that these are catergorical different to reasoned debate seems an obvious one. Count Dankula falls in the latter catergory rather than reasoned debate and dialogue.

You have correctly assessed the other examples except fort he one we are talking about... Look at the context IT WAS A JOKE, not a reasoned debate, he is a 's*** poster'. 3 million views and nobody actually made a complaint. I guess you would have if you'd seen it.

Just read that there was no jury at the trial?

Hmmm... The video is still on YouTube despite it being "hate speech" [Link]

Edited by Penge Eagle (21 Mar 2018 8.39pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 22 Mar 18 7.21am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by martin2412

I'd like to know what the other sites you moderate are. I would bet that they're relatively non confrontational, ie gardeners corner or a postage stamp collectors forum. This is a football fans forum where by the nature of football fans banter prevails.

Quote

The biggest difference between forums like gardeners corner or a postage stamp collectors forum is that their residents can probably tell the difference between insulting racial and religious stereotyping and so called banter

Originally posted by martin2412

Thanks Lyons for saying that as a Jewish bloke you weren't offended by my post, because no offence was intended. Any reasonable person could have deduced that and seen it as the harmless joke it was.

Whether any offence was intended is irrelevant as your comment was racially insensitive and only a relic from yesteryear would view it as nothing more than a harmless joke just as they would any racial stereotyping joke about black or Asian people or indeed any minority group or do you think that they are nothing more than banter and any reasonable person could deduce that.

Originally posted by martin2412 Moderating shouldn't be based on someone's personal opinion, and football sites are bound to be more near the knuckle than mums.net

Moderating isn't based on my personal opinion but the forum's rules that you agreed to abide by when joining this forum and I will take this opportunity to remind you of just two of them:-

By becoming a member of the site, you agree to the following rules:

8.Transmit any message, information, data, text, software or graphic files, or other materials ("Content" that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful or racially, ethnically, sexually or otherwise objectionable.

22.We have a team of moderators who manage the various discussion forums. Please treat them with courtesy and respect. Remember, moderator decisions are final and discussions regarding their actions are not permitted on the forums. Members must not question their judgements as they are far too busy to enter into debates or arguments. If you continue to do so, you may be banned from the website.

This matter is now closed but if you have a problem with that you can take it up with the site's Admins as per the forum's rule number four which includes "If you have a problem, email us direct: editor@holmesdale.net"

Edited by Midlands Eagle (22 Mar 2018 7.22am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 22 Mar 18 11.02am Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Direwolf

I doubt if moderation is based on the singular personal view of anyone. I imagine that the moderator role involves making some decisions about what might or might not be considered moderate for such a forum. How would you suggest that this forum crowd will self-regulate without the intervention of a moderator?

You clearly let the debate take place and then moderate depending on how that debate goes...rather than stifling the debate by removing posts before it happens.

Anyhoo, it's an observation and as i said previously I understand it's a hard job to do.

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 22 Mar 18 11.07am Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Apologies Midlands...i replied to the above before I read that you deemed the matter to now be closed.

It put it down to me being a relic of yesteryear aged 47 lol

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 22 Mar 18 11.19am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550

It put it down to me being a relic of yesteryear aged 47 lol

Youngster

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 22 Mar 18 1.09pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Moderating isn't based on my personal opinion but the forum's rules that you agreed to abide by when joining this forum and I will take this opportunity to remind you of just two of them:-

By becoming a member of the site, you agree to the following rules:

8.Transmit any message, information, data, text, software or graphic files, or other materials ("Content" that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful or racially, ethnically, sexually or otherwise objectionable.

22.We have a team of moderators who manage the various discussion forums. Please treat them with courtesy and respect. Remember, moderator decisions are final and discussions regarding their actions are not permitted on the forums. Members must not question their judgements as they are far too busy to enter into debates or arguments. If you continue to do so, you may be banned from the website.

This matter is now closed but if you have a problem with that you can take it up with the site's Admins as per the forum's rule number four which includes "If you have a problem, email us direct: editor@holmesdale.net"

Edited by Midlands Eagle (22 Mar 2018 7.22am)

I don't always agree with you Midlands but this is an excellent post. I mean all of the post, not specifically the bit that come up in the quote.

Edited by Mapletree (22 Mar 2018 1.10pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Mar 18 1.27pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Ah interpretations interpretations.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ketteridge's Profile Ketteridge Flag Brighton 22 Mar 18 1.29pm Send a Private Message to Ketteridge Add Ketteridge as a friend

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

You have correctly assessed the other examples except fort he one we are talking about... Look at the context IT WAS A JOKE, not a reasoned debate, he is a 's*** poster'. 3 million views and nobody actually made a complaint. I guess you would have if you'd seen it.

Just read that there was no jury at the trial?

Hmmm... The video is still on YouTube despite it being "hate speech" [Link]

Edited by Penge Eagle (21 Mar 2018 8.39pm)

It being a joke doesn't excuse him, if in my example James McClean took his girlfriends pug to Enniskillen dressed in camouflage jacket and balaclava with a small toy armalite and got it to run around excited when he shouted 'up the ra' or trained it to pee on poppies, we wouldn't be saying that's fair enough he is having a laugh . If ISIS hired Michael McIntyre to write some funny observational comedy about different behavioral quirks of infidels we wouldn't see it as OK.
The point about reasoned argument comes from responding to other post, offence can be justified creatively and academically if it leads to greater understanding. Additionally comedy has always been used to poke fun at those that take them self too seriously, and to be fair there are lots of people could do with being laughed at more regularly and I wouldn’t exclude myself or others on here from that list.
I wouldn't have complained I'm much too lazy for that , I just don't have much sympathy for him and actually it is crass and offensive , he has broken the law and he has been punished for it, he knew it was offensive and by his own admission he chose the most offensive thing he could think of then posted it on the internet. He is not a martyr for freedom of expression or suffering for creative talent to borrow from Monty Python 'he is a very naughty boy' well not that naughty more just a bit ignorant.


Edited by Ketteridge (22 Mar 2018 1.38pm)

 


One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Mar 18 1.37pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ketteridge

It being a joke doesn't excuse him, if in my example James McClean took his girlfriends pug to Enniskillen dressed in camouflage jacket and balaclava with a small toy armalite and got it to run around excited when he shouted 'up the ra' or trained it to pee on poppies, we wouldn't be saying that's fair enough he is having a laugh . If ISIS hired Michael McIntyre to write some funny observational comedy about different behavioral quirks of infidels we wouldn't see it as OK.
The point about reasoned argument comes from responding to other post, offence can be justified creatively and academically if it leads to greater understanding. Additionally comedy has always been used to poke fun at those that take them self too seriously, and to be fair there are lots of people could do with being laughed at more regularly and I wouldn’t exclude myself or others on here from that list.
I wouldn't have complained I'm much too lazy for that , I just don't have much sympathy for him, he has broken the law and he has been punished for it, he knew it was offensive and by his own admission he chose the most offensive thing he could think of then posted it on the internet. He is not a martyr for freedom of expression or suffering for creative talent to borrow from Monty Python 'he is a very naughty boy' well not that naughty more just a bit ignorant.

Awful awful opinions.

I mean, what a silly example, 'writing comedy for ISIS'...That's was no intent for this joke to be pro Nazi, the guy says at the start of the video that he wants to train the dog to do the most offensive thing he can to upset his girlfriend. He's calling the Nazi's offensive. People like you twist the narrative to suit your own interpretation so that you can close down speech.

Stuff like this could be argued to have John Cleese arrested for his goose stepping. Your opinions need pushback.

Your views on what constitutes acceptable offence is incredibly subjective and no society that can be called free can operate upon those opinions.

I remind people that there is a demonstration against this decision on the 23rd of April (sentencing day). Currently it's outside the houses of Parliament but I will update on that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Mar 2018 1.43pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ketteridge's Profile Ketteridge Flag Brighton 22 Mar 18 4.14pm Send a Private Message to Ketteridge Add Ketteridge as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Awful awful opinions.

I mean, what a silly example, 'writing comedy for ISIS'...That's was no intent for this joke to be pro Nazi, the guy says at the start of the video that he wants to train the dog to do the most offensive thing he can to upset his girlfriend. He's calling the Nazi's offensive. People like you twist the narrative to suit your own interpretation so that you can close down speech.

Stuff like this could be argued to have John Cleese arrested for his goose stepping. Your opinions need pushback.

Your views on what constitutes acceptable offence is incredibly subjective and no society that can be called free can operate upon those opinions.

I remind people that there is a demonstration against this decision on the 23rd of April (sentencing day). Currently it's outside the houses of Parliament but I will update on that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Mar 2018 1.43pm)

The point about ISIS is to show that claiming it is a joke is not a good enough reason which Penge eagle seemed to be suggesting. As I said earlier he was found guilty of sending by "means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" which falls under the communication act 2003 not for ‘Hate Crime’ which falls under the Public order Act 1986 , I’m assuming because it was understood that he didn’t intend to incite racial hatred. I’m not a lawyer and not sure if similar applies in Scotland and if anyone can shed more light on that then please do. Yes I do appreciate that I've just said this after applying in the case of Count Dankula that if you going to post on the internet you should have a basic idea of what your talking about.
Contrary to wanting curtail free expression I’ve stated I would welcome proper free and open debate on a range of views, my view is that is better out in the open being discussed and evaluated then hidden away where no counter argument can find it .
My views are subjective and so are yours, but my views are in line with the view of the Sheriff, who is representing the law which is based on precedent and legislation. The legislation comes from elected officials who are elected by the people. So while my views may be subjective they are based on fairly solid ground. You have every right to write to you MP, you have every right to campaign and march and I will defend that right. Should you campaign be successfully then I will understand my views on what is offence or not does not represent the views of the country as a whole and I will need to adjust myself to that.
Twice in the space of 6 pages you have posted ‘You might as well talk to the back of your hand with these people. They aren't worth it’ and directly to my post ‘Your opinions need pushback.’, am I generous type i will try to understand your intentions are a result of my intractability or your frustration at not being able to get you point across but it could also been seen as limit of my free speech.

 


One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Mar 18 7.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ketteridge

The point about ISIS is to show that claiming it is a joke is not a good enough reason which Penge eagle seemed to be suggesting.

If ISIS were behind jokes then the purpose would have the intent to do them benefit. Whether someone should be able to say ISIS inspired jokes is another argument.

However it's an entirely inappropriate argument to make as it has no relevance to this case. The judge already said that intent was irelevant.....which is ridiculous but that's this judge in a nutshell.

Dankula had already implied at the start of the video that anything Nazi related is offensive. So it's not helping them unless you view mockery as help.

Originally posted by Ketteridge

As I said earlier he was found guilty of sending by "means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" which falls under the communication act 2003 not for ‘Hate Crime’ which falls under the Public order Act 1986 , I’m assuming because it was understood that he didn’t intend to incite racial hatred. I’m not a lawyer and not sure if similar applies in Scotland and if anyone can shed more light on that then please do. Yes I do appreciate that I've just said this after applying in the case of Count Dankula that if you going to post on the internet you should have a basic idea of what your talking about.

This is a UK wide law. The aspect that Dankula has been convicted over was an addition to this bill and not its original purpose. However the result is the same.


Originally posted by Ketteridge

Contrary to wanting curtail free expression I’ve stated I would welcome proper free and open debate on a range of views, my view is that is better out in the open being discussed and evaluated then hidden away where no counter argument can find it .

Only the views that you deem acceptable though....the laws on free speech in common English law only changed when Blair and his BS introduced this crap in the nineties.

It's been built on and free speech has worsened in this country since the social justice clowns have been in control.

Originally posted by Ketteridge

My views are subjective and so are yours, but my views are in line with the view of the Sheriff, who is representing the law which is based on precedent and legislation. The legislation comes from elected officials who are elected by the people. So while my views may be subjective they are based on fairly solid ground. You have every right to write to you MP, you have every right to campaign and march and I will defend that right. Should you campaign be successfully then I will understand my views on what is offence or not does not represent the views of the country as a whole and I will need to adjust myself to that.

Your views on what should be allowed as offence are very subjective....for instance you named 'select' comedians who are offensive to some that you deem acceptable.....yet with Dankula you are happy enough for his jokes not to be accepted.

Just because a political party gains power and passes laws that does not mean that all those laws have majority popular appeal....all it means is that come election night, that party were more popular than the other option....that's it. Claiming support for 'hate' laws is a huge stretch.

I pointed out the subjectivity and impossibility of your viewpoint with a society that is genuinely free.

I have a fair idea of what Hicks would think of your views by the way.....he was allowed to express himself in a country that genuinely allows free speech and he valued that right. Some of his jokes were genuinely offensive....like telling certain people to 'kill themselves'.....done over here that's hate speech.

Originally posted by Ketteridge

Twice in the space of 6 pages you have posted ‘You might as well talk to the back of your hand with these people. They aren't worth it’ and directly to my post ‘Your opinions need pushback.’, am I generous type i will try to understand your intentions are a result of my intractability or your frustration at not being able to get you point across but it could also been seen as limit of my free speech.

Reading your posts is annoying and your attitude is offensive to me. I regard your views as a part of the overall problem in this country. However I believe in your right to express your views.

You are being criticised not limited in your free speech.....that's stuff you support.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Mar 2018 7.34pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 22 Mar 18 7.19pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Reading your posts is annoying and your attitude is offensive to me. I regard you as apart of the overall problem in this country. However I believe in your right to express your views.

You are being criticised not limited in your free speech.....that's stuff you support.


Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Mar 2018 7.09pm)

The good news Ketteridge is that you are apart of the overall problem. Completely independent of it. Stirling likes independent thinkers

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 6 of 10 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The curious case of Count Dankula