-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
What else I would tolerate is neither here nor there. It has zero meaningful effect on me if becomes illegal to write down and publish what LS did on her last visit.
Really you sure? How exactly would the law work where it is illegal to offend? And how would that not apply to you? You never offend anyone? Ever?
I offend a lot of people all the time every day - I question everything, I have argued with CEOs of large companies. . I pick my battles and fight tooth and nail for them. i take some things personally, and others not - it's my job.
At no stage, at any point, have I said it should be illegal to offend people. Quote me where I said anything even close to that.
Colossal difference between saying 'It should be illegal to offend' and not being bothered about a law which will only have an effect on right wing trouble makers.
I'd say it's laws that can be misused against anybody, depending on who is in power. And that is concerning. I'm pretty sure people would not want, for example, Trump to start misusing laws like this against left wing troublemakers (aka activists).
Your take on a lot of this appears to centre around "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care". You claimed the rape gangs in Luton were not "rampant" (playing semantics) despite conservative estimates putting it at 1000 victims in a town of just 240k people. I think the victims and their families would describe it as rampant given the sheer number and the complete lack of support from the Police. But you didn't really see or hear about it so you're playing down the extent of the problem.
I do understand and actually agree with your overall point that things are never as bad as the activists make out. If you believed the left wing activists you'd think our whole society was set up with the sole purpose of oppressing anyone that is not a straight white male, which is utterly ridiculous. So it is worth keeping that in mind.
But in this instance I think you're playing down some really important issues around free speech which if taken through to their conclusion will end up infringing on absolutely everyone's rights. And given the oppressive regimes of the 20th century and many that continue today which centre around the removal of free speech and individual rights, it's an issue that is absolutely fundamental to the survival of the society we know and love today.
That's why I (and others) think it's really important to call out and push back against authorities that start abusing their power and infringing on these rights, even if it's against people we don't like or disagree with.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@majorrage Just giving my opinion mate. I'm a British citizen and I love the people, the place and the incredible history. What has been happening these last few years really has got my back up. Last year I intended to write an article on the scale of the grooming crisis but reading through the victim reports and the official enquiry all got a bit much for me so I put a hold on it, seeing it come up yet again on a similar scale just beggars belief. The rape torture and murder of young girls was well known yet people remained silent because it was 'uncomfortable'.
Markus Meecham a Scottish comedian has been facing 2 years of court trial for telling a joke online using his girlfriends Pug. The crown prosecution claim and this is pretty close to a quote 'That the pug was just a distraction and his real intention was to speak to football stadiums full of people to push his Nazi ideology'. He has now been in court for longer than the Nuremberg trials. For telling a friggen joke. Who hasn't told a bad taste joke in their time?
And now this Lauren Southern thing, the clearest indicator yet that it's not just paranoia but a real sign that the country is becoming seriously ill and I'm more than happy letting people know that even if it makes people pissed off. Staying silent will not help matters.
You don't have to debate with me, I hope that you do though as I want my views challenged as much as possible because like everyone I will get things wrong and I need to know about it. I've said statements that seem overly exaggerated to you but I believe there is evidence there to support those views you don't have to agree.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande
This is it:
Fair play, that does play pretty bad on its own especially with an army of EDL members. I think Piers Morgan challenged him on it in his very brief interview, I'll have to re-watch that to refresh my memoryThere is no way he should of said it but after hearing his full story in the Oxford talk I can't blame him for saying it.
I kind of look at it like an old Zimbabwean flatmate of one of my best friends in the UK. He hated black people, I thought he was a total fluffybunny and generally avoided him. That was until someone explained to me about what happened in Zimbabwe and the government sponsored murder of his father and other family members. Sure he was racist but you had to have some sympathy in context. He's actually since found Jesus and now some of his best friends are black christians so yay born again Christians! (in some instances)
Tommy is certainly far more careful with words nowadays. He records every interview involved in now, often live over facebook due to the amount of misquotation. I understand he is suing the police currently, from the videos I've seen he actually has a hell of a case if there is still justice over there.
In the Telegraph interview he backed away from much of his former stuff and it may be that he's mellowed and matured over time. Also he's had some time in prison to reflect on things and maybe that changed him a little. For sure the content he puts out now is much more polished and reasonable.
-
Right - quite a few questions asked - let me have a go ...
Only have an effect on right wing trouble makers? Now you're just taking the piss - yes, perhaps I am. It comes down to what you think can and can't be defined in Free Speech. Anything goes, and there should be no repurcussions of Violence? To tone it down a litte, you are saying that in 2011, an Australian can go to any NZ ground and chant repeatedly "McCaw is a Cheat" without repurcussions? Or 2005 to an Aussie grounds and chatnt "Warne is a chucker" without repurcussions? Yes, you are right - he can. But is that realistic? Of course it's not. Free Speech says you can do what LS did and have no repurcussions - but again, is that realistic? Why would a law which could limit violence, and potentially save lives be such a bad thing?
I'm going to be generous and again accept that you're just arguing this for the sake of arguing and that you (understandably) were triggered by the "Britain is burning" comment.
If I'm truthful with myself, probably more correct than incorrect this statementYour take on a lot of this appears to centre around "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care"
No, not true. I'm playing down how important this all is up here, and reacting to the ridiculous sweeping statements towards Britain as a whole.I do understand and actually agree with your overall point that things are never as bad as the activists make out. If you believed the left wing activists you'd think our whole society was set up with the sole purpose of oppressing anyone that is not a straight white male, which is utterly ridiculous. So it is worth keeping that in mind.
I've liked your post purely for this paragraph - 100% correct.You claimed the rape gangs in Luton were not "rampant" (playing semantics) despite conservative estimates putting it at 1000 victims in a town of just 240k people. I think the victims and their families would describe it as rampant given the sheer number and the complete lack of support from the Police
Yes and no. Semantics - ok fair point. I have reiterated many times on how truly disguting this thing was - yes, it goes against the grain of some of my argument, but not the widespread part. What I really didn't like is the leading on from this story talking about Pakistani males. Now I know that its' not talking about all, but this how these things began and evolved - when a whole sector of people were taking the blame for a sub sector. Comments like this "You then have Pakistani men not integrated with western society with IQ significantly impacted by generations of accepted inbreeding whom only see white women as sex objects." don't help. I know it's only talking about a sub sector once again, but that sentence in isolation isn't. And I think it should be called out.
That's why I (and others) think it's really important to call out and push back against authorities that start abusing their power and infringing on these rights, even if it's against people we don't like or disagree with.
Ok. But this shift change isn't really that big in my view. Islamic clerics who have been accused of inciting violence elsehwere have been denied entry for years. Now obviously the quickest rebute is to say that LS wasn't inciting violence. Directly, correct. Indirectly? Well, thats where both you and I, and you and the British Border Police disagree.
And now this Lauren Southern thing, the clearest indicator yet that it's not just paranoia but a real sign that the country is becoming seriously ill and I'm more than happy letting people know that even if it makes people pissed off. Staying silent will not help matters
Yes, I understand and respect most of that position. I just don't agree at all that the country is "seriously ill". It's got it's problems, but what country hasn't? It's no more ill than Australia with the indigenous, America with pretty much so everyone, and lets not even start with most the continental Europe.
Couple of other smaller things to add.
Had dinner last night with the Dads of my daughters class in school. 25 odd guys - outside the Brits, there were 3 South Asian, an Iranian, one African and a few Jaapies. Everybody got on well, many subjects were chatted - Brexit, life, kids, sport etc. 2 of the 3 South Asians didn't drink. At no point did anybody bring up any of the above, were the South Asians asked about non drinking, did religon and beliefs come up. THAT is Britain. Or at least, the vast vast majority of it. That shouldn't be forgotten.
I see LS was invited to speak at the European parliament ... Although banning her coming in is a contentious subject, I do wonder if it has helped make Britain that little bit safer compared to Europe ...
Anyway, I hope I've answered / debated with many of you.
Rancid - I apologise for some more personal directed posts .. blame the 4 beers and the curry at the Dad's night. It is hypocritical of me to claim some of what I have, if I cannot practice what I preach.
EDIT - one more thing I wanted to add which really made me think. A few years ago after the Charlie Hedbo thing, I was having drink with a Sheffield born/raised Pakistani Muslim pal of mine. His view was quite fair I thought. Something like - - "Free speech is a good thing and nobody should be oppressed from what they want to say. But what were those guys really doing? It looked like they were just written purely to provoke a reaction - unfortunately a predictable one from some extremists. Is that really what Free Speech is about - quite dangerous if it is"
I found that interesting anyway.
-
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed. -
@jegga said in British Politics:
@crucial I think the point they were making was that the law is effectively being used as a blasphemy law since this case is involving religion and seems to only ever involve Islam.
I could be wrong , that was my take though.
Yep, they used the terrorism act as defacto blasphemy laws - applied only for Islam.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court. -
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself. -
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
British Politics