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.

As I have said the point about ISIS has no bearing on this case, I mentioned it in a response to the defence that he was just joking to show that 'just joking' doesn’t excuse everything.
As I said three times now, 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" not hate crimes. You pointing out that ‘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’ really just confirms my point by his own admission he found the most offensive thing he could and used it as a basis for his joke, and the fall foul of laws ruling governing offence and we are surprised by this?
Again as I’ve said before I support a wider version of free speech then is currently in the country, I said in a previous post that I would be happy to see David Irving , Ken Livingstone, Omar Bakri discussing their views openly I would be happy for James McClean to explain why he won’t wear a poppy. If it is only the views I support I will allow then I’m holocaust denier and but believe Hitler was a Zionist who wants a united Ireland but only under Sharia law, that would indeed make me an very independent thinker.
Again, my views are subjective but supported by the Law which is supported by democratically elected representatives, laws upheld by successive governments. If there are protest and the law changes then as I have said I will adjust my view of what is considered acceptable by society , even if it is not considered acceptable by me.

As I have said I’m limited to what I can do , this site has rules if I break them I will be Yellow or red carded, if I go to the Whitgift centre and shout my head off randomly I will asked to leave at the very least. My local pub cannot show hardcore p*** whatever the demand for it. We live in society and therefore have societal rules and law so that society can work.

I mention the artist and comedian as a point that offence can be legitimate in the line of creativity; Bill Hicks used offence to make wider points about society fine and noble intent, not to annoy his girlfriend.

If my view and post are annoying to you fair enough I’m not intending to annoy you which I understand you accept, as you have said that is the point of free speech, if I was deliberately trying to annoy you then that would be trolling which is a bad thing but we are having a free exchange of view which is a good thing.

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

Thanks Mapletree, but given I'm dyslexic with fat fingers which are no good for typing I'll keep my head down about spelling and typing errors to be on the safe side.

Edited by Ketteridge as I could not even write a short sentence without an error (22 Mar 2018 9.35pm)

Edited by Ketteridge (22 Mar 2018 9.37pm)

You could have got away with that one Stirling. I assumed it was auto correct. I just like to tease.

Jonathan Pie makes a pretty good assessment on this [Link]

Jonathan Pie makes a pretty good assessment on this [Link]

It isn't only grumpy it's irrelevant. A point stands on its own regardless of who makes it.

He attacks everything you argued for on this whether he worked for 'Russia today' or Breitbart.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Mar 2018 10.30pm)