Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/jordan-parlour-facebook-user-jailed-for-riot-related-social-media-posts-13193894 " Good. Now go after the platforms, too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions." The article says he wrote 'to smash the fuck out of it', not 'burn down the building'. Is there more information? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail?" Quite a number. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail?" It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/jordan-parlour-facebook-user-jailed-for-riot-related-social-media-posts-13193894 Good. Now go after the platforms, too." Absolutely. However, would this include anything on the spectrum that is within these forums? If so, the moderators may have their hands full, especially if a lot of potentially illegal comment is allowed to stay on site. Which raises the theoretical point. What would the site mods do if faced by a request for details of someone suspected of something similar on these forums? Would they may be compelled, theoretically, to provide email addresses, details of internet use, payment details etc? There is no "client confidentiality" when faced with either production orders or disclosure orders signed by a judge. Realistically, it shouldn't come down to this as there aren't enough employees of policing authorities to investigate. It would be worth getting in a catering packet of popcorn if it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law?" I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/jordan-parlour-facebook-user-jailed-for-riot-related-social-media-posts-13193894 Good. Now go after the platforms, too. Absolutely. However, would this include anything on the spectrum that is within these forums? If so, the moderators may have their hands full, especially if a lot of potentially illegal comment is allowed to stay on site. Which raises the theoretical point. What would the site mods do if faced by a request for details of someone suspected of something similar on these forums? Would they may be compelled, theoretically, to provide email addresses, details of internet use, payment details etc? There is no "client confidentiality" when faced with either production orders or disclosure orders signed by a judge. Realistically, it shouldn't come down to this as there aren't enough employees of policing authorities to investigate. It would be worth getting in a catering packet of popcorn if it does." You'd scale up responsibility with reach and numbers. Scale down for non-public areas. Exclude for private communication. It could be done, but those are very valid questions. But the issue is less with the posters and more with the platform. Make the platform responsible for anything published upon it. You can never really control posters, who can easily hide who they are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/jordan-parlour-facebook-user-jailed-for-riot-related-social-media-posts-13193894 Good. Now go after the platforms, too. Absolutely. However, would this include anything on the spectrum that is within these forums? If so, the moderators may have their hands full, especially if a lot of potentially illegal comment is allowed to stay on site. Which raises the theoretical point. What would the site mods do if faced by a request for details of someone suspected of something similar on these forums? Would they may be compelled, theoretically, to provide email addresses, details of internet use, payment details etc? There is no "client confidentiality" when faced with either production orders or disclosure orders signed by a judge. Realistically, it shouldn't come down to this as there aren't enough employees of policing authorities to investigate. It would be worth getting in a catering packet of popcorn if it does. You'd scale up responsibility with reach and numbers. Scale down for non-public areas. Exclude for private communication. It could be done, but those are very valid questions. But the issue is less with the posters and more with the platform. Make the platform responsible for anything published upon it. You can never really control posters, who can easily hide who they are." Obviously not that easily if people are being jailed! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/jordan-parlour-facebook-user-jailed-for-riot-related-social-media-posts-13193894 Good. Now go after the platforms, too. Absolutely. However, would this include anything on the spectrum that is within these forums? If so, the moderators may have their hands full, especially if a lot of potentially illegal comment is allowed to stay on site. Which raises the theoretical point. What would the site mods do if faced by a request for details of someone suspected of something similar on these forums? Would they may be compelled, theoretically, to provide email addresses, details of internet use, payment details etc? There is no "client confidentiality" when faced with either production orders or disclosure orders signed by a judge. Realistically, it shouldn't come down to this as there aren't enough employees of policing authorities to investigate. It would be worth getting in a catering packet of popcorn if it does. You'd scale up responsibility with reach and numbers. Scale down for non-public areas. Exclude for private communication. It could be done, but those are very valid questions. But the issue is less with the posters and more with the platform. Make the platform responsible for anything published upon it. You can never really control posters, who can easily hide who they are. Obviously not that easily if people are being jailed!" EncroChat Black Phone is proof of that.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. The article says he wrote 'to smash the fuck out of it', not 'burn down the building'. Is there more information?" That's a mistake on my part. I went off the headline. I would still say to smash the fuck out of it is a call for violence though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. The article says he wrote 'to smash the fuck out of it', not 'burn down the building'. Is there more information? That's a mistake on my part. I went off the headline. I would still say to smash the fuck out of it is a call for violence though." Apparently, according to some, violence against inanimate objects is ok  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law?" I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. The article says he wrote 'to smash the fuck out of it', not 'burn down the building'. Is there more information? That's a mistake on my part. I went off the headline. I would still say to smash the fuck out of it is a call for violence though. Apparently, according to some, violence against inanimate objects is ok "Violence for the cause I support is noble. Violence for the cause I don't support is criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. " Go after them all. You break the law or incite others to break the law or encourage violence then the law should come down on you. Hard. Whoever you are. Not sure many would disagree with that would they? I do find it very interesting though how over the last week or so certain posters have displayed a pattern of bringing the other side into things, repeatedly. I’m sure it can’t be an attempt to reduce the severity of the racist bellends’ actions now can it? I mean those rioters have been absolute tools right? Surely it is possible to talk about them and what they started without needing to resort to what about those other people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists." People from Leeds have been charged and jailed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists. People from Leeds have been charged and jailed"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. Go after them all. You break the law or incite others to break the law or encourage violence then the law should come down on you. Hard. Whoever you are. Not sure many would disagree with that would they? I do find it very interesting though how over the last week or so certain posters have displayed a pattern of bringing the other side into things, repeatedly. I’m sure it can’t be an attempt to reduce the severity of the racist bellends’ actions now can it? I mean those rioters have been absolute tools right? Surely it is possible to talk about them and what they started without needing to resort to what about those other people?" It is of course possible to talk about them.... Why aren't people allowed to bring up others who have done the same thing but haven't seen any punishment? 'Two tier' is part of the issues that people are rioting about. The only reason I can think of that people wouldn't want to talk about 'the other side' is because they don't agree those on 'their side' are as bad. Bringing this up seems like nothing but trying to shut down conversation. Let me ask you a direct question. Should Nick Lowles be arrested and prosecuted? I don't want some half arsed 'prosecute them all' answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists." Agreed. All bellends need sorting out by the law. It still feels like some folks are trying to excuse the recent riots by bringing up older riots because “they were the other side”. Starting to feel rather puerile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists. Agreed. All bellends need sorting out by the law. It still feels like some folks are trying to excuse the recent riots by bringing up older riots because “they were the other side”. Starting to feel rather puerile. " People from Leeds have been charged and jailed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I think the people calling for violence should be punished. But not dealing with the Leeds riot similarly will only prove the concerns of these rioters that two-tier policing exists. People from Leeds have been charged and jailed" Thank you. Not been following but maybe those making two-tier assertions should have a look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. Go after them all. You break the law or incite others to break the law or encourage violence then the law should come down on you. Hard. Whoever you are. Not sure many would disagree with that would they? I do find it very interesting though how over the last week or so certain posters have displayed a pattern of bringing the other side into things, repeatedly. I’m sure it can’t be an attempt to reduce the severity of the racist bellends’ actions now can it? I mean those rioters have been absolute tools right? Surely it is possible to talk about them and what they started without needing to resort to what about those other people? It is of course possible to talk about them.... Why aren't people allowed to bring up others who have done the same thing but haven't seen any punishment? 'Two tier' is part of the issues that people are rioting about. The only reason I can think of that people wouldn't want to talk about 'the other side' is because they don't agree those on 'their side' are as bad. Bringing this up seems like nothing but trying to shut down conversation. Let me ask you a direct question. Should Nick Lowles be arrested and prosecuted? I don't want some half arsed 'prosecute them all' answer. " Prosecute them all isn’t half-arsed. It’s a valid policy position. Break the law, get prosecuted. Simple. I haven’t posted as much lately but have lurked and there is a definite atmosphere of some posters appearing to be trying to excuse the racist bellends. It feels a little desperate and repetitive. As for Nick Lowles, well being honest I had to google him after you asked as never heard of him. I can see something about a list being false but I am not about to spend an age researching so…can you tell me what he has done so I can answer please | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. Go after them all. You break the law or incite others to break the law or encourage violence then the law should come down on you. Hard. Whoever you are. Not sure many would disagree with that would they? I do find it very interesting though how over the last week or so certain posters have displayed a pattern of bringing the other side into things, repeatedly. I’m sure it can’t be an attempt to reduce the severity of the racist bellends’ actions now can it? I mean those rioters have been absolute tools right? Surely it is possible to talk about them and what they started without needing to resort to what about those other people? It is of course possible to talk about them.... Why aren't people allowed to bring up others who have done the same thing but haven't seen any punishment? 'Two tier' is part of the issues that people are rioting about. The only reason I can think of that people wouldn't want to talk about 'the other side' is because they don't agree those on 'their side' are as bad. Bringing this up seems like nothing but trying to shut down conversation. Let me ask you a direct question. Should Nick Lowles be arrested and prosecuted? I don't want some half arsed 'prosecute them all' answer. Prosecute them all isn’t half-arsed. It’s a valid policy position. Break the law, get prosecuted. Simple. I haven’t posted as much lately but have lurked and there is a definite atmosphere of some posters appearing to be trying to excuse the racist bellends. It feels a little desperate and repetitive. As for Nick Lowles, well being honest I had to google him after you asked as never heard of him. I can see something about a list being false but I am not about to spend an age researching so…can you tell me what he has done so I can answer please "I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch?" Seriously? King's Bench Warriors.... Kier's Barrista Warriors.... Kaiser Bill's Warriors.... Or alternatively, Key Board Warriors (but as a light aside, please keep the list going). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch?" Not very Fetch then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question." Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! "Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one." If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! "The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen." That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Not very Fetch then?" Oh doh just realised Key Board Warriors. Fuck me that was slow of me.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Not very Fetch then? Oh doh just realised Key Board Warriors. Fuck me that was slow of me. "Low Aura points lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Seriously? King's Bench Warriors.... Kier's Barrista Warriors.... Kaiser Bill's Warriors.... Or alternatively, Key Board Warriors (but as a light aside, please keep the list going)." Man was I slow there 
Blame it on a tough week of work and being knackered (that’s my excuse anyway ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism?" See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite hard to keep up - it's all happening very quickly. Over 400 arrests now. Latest six in stoke on trent" Make that 600 arrests ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Seriously? King's Bench Warriors.... Kier's Barrista Warriors.... Kaiser Bill's Warriors.... Or alternatively, Key Board Warriors (but as a light aside, please keep the list going). Man was I slow there
Blame it on a tough week of work and being knackered (that’s my excuse anyway )"Excused Perhaps you are a "Knackered Brighton Warrior" pmsl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Seriously? King's Bench Warriors.... Kier's Barrista Warriors.... Kaiser Bill's Warriors.... Or alternatively, Key Board Warriors (but as a light aside, please keep the list going). Man was I slow there
Blame it on a tough week of work and being knackered (that’s my excuse anyway )
Excused
Perhaps you are a "Knackered Brighton Warrior" pmsl"Lol good one  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. " You seem very angry Feisty. Why is that? Ok he did it. Prosecute him then. Simple! And yeah if you join a riot that is purportedly about immigrants with people around you chanting anti immigrant songs and then targeting locations linked with immigrants, then yes you are racist but perhaps too thick to realise in some cases. You know there are some posters in here who seem to think they are being clever with the whole two sides argument etc but sometimes some things are simply inexcusable and indefensible. Some things are just plain wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently, we can use the same legislation to go after time wasters on here who arrange a meet then never show. "There’s nowhere near enough prison cells! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. You seem very angry Feisty. Why is that? Ok he did it. Prosecute him then. Simple! And yeah if you join a riot that is purportedly about immigrants with people around you chanting anti immigrant songs and then targeting locations linked with immigrants, then yes you are racist but perhaps too thick to realise in some cases. You know there are some posters in here who seem to think they are being clever with the whole two sides argument etc but sometimes some things are simply inexcusable and indefensible. Some things are just plain wrong." Not angry, I just have a want for a fair judiciary and fair trial. If you'd prefer guilty without trial then we'll never agree. Some things, like riots are inexcusable but to call them racist riots when you have no idea of everyone's motivations is just simple bullshit. You can call everyone who took part in the 'hotel burning' a racist. You can't call everyone who pelted the police racist. I hope you hold all of the 'pro palestine' marchers to the same standard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. You seem very angry Feisty. Why is that? Ok he did it. Prosecute him then. Simple! And yeah if you join a riot that is purportedly about immigrants with people around you chanting anti immigrant songs and then targeting locations linked with immigrants, then yes you are racist but perhaps too thick to realise in some cases. You know there are some posters in here who seem to think they are being clever with the whole two sides argument etc but sometimes some things are simply inexcusable and indefensible. Some things are just plain wrong. Not angry, I just have a want for a fair judiciary and fair trial. If you'd prefer guilty without trial then we'll never agree. Some things, like riots are inexcusable but to call them racist riots when you have no idea of everyone's motivations is just simple bullshit. You can call everyone who took part in the 'hotel burning' a racist. You can't call everyone who pelted the police racist. I hope you hold all of the 'pro palestine' marchers to the same standard. " Oh you are angry alright. Not sure why? Now I clearly have not read every single post on this topic this past week or so and I may have missed it, but I don’t recall you unconditionally condemning these riots or making a single post simply condemning them. It is always conditional. There seems to always be an “ah but”. Why is that? If I have missed those unconditional condemning posts then apologies in advance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. You seem very angry Feisty. Why is that? Ok he did it. Prosecute him then. Simple! And yeah if you join a riot that is purportedly about immigrants with people around you chanting anti immigrant songs and then targeting locations linked with immigrants, then yes you are racist but perhaps too thick to realise in some cases. You know there are some posters in here who seem to think they are being clever with the whole two sides argument etc but sometimes some things are simply inexcusable and indefensible. Some things are just plain wrong. Not angry, I just have a want for a fair judiciary and fair trial. If you'd prefer guilty without trial then we'll never agree. Some things, like riots are inexcusable but to call them racist riots when you have no idea of everyone's motivations is just simple bullshit. You can call everyone who took part in the 'hotel burning' a racist. You can't call everyone who pelted the police racist. I hope you hold all of the 'pro palestine' marchers to the same standard. Oh you are angry alright. Not sure why? Now I clearly have not read every single post on this topic this past week or so and I may have missed it, but I don’t recall you unconditionally condemning these riots or making a single post simply condemning them. It is always conditional. There seems to always be an “ah but”. Why is that? If I have missed those unconditional condemning posts then apologies in advance "Is this another case of you deciding who's guilty (in this case me being angry) without actually knowing? What has my post either condemning or not have to do with our discussion? Besides, did I not just say, in my last post, that rioting is inexcusable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. Go after them all. You break the law or incite others to break the law or encourage violence then the law should come down on you. Hard. Whoever you are. Not sure many would disagree with that would they? I do find it very interesting though how over the last week or so certain posters have displayed a pattern of bringing the other side into things, repeatedly. I’m sure it can’t be an attempt to reduce the severity of the racist bellends’ actions now can it? I mean those rioters have been absolute tools right? Surely it is possible to talk about them and what they started without needing to resort to what about those other people?" Could rename this forum Whataboutery  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already explain why I think 'prosecute them all' is half arsed when answering a direct question. Not to me. Don’t assume I have every post or that if I did I would agree with your position. So for me prosecute them all is not half-arsed, it is actually an obvious way to avoid two-tier! Nick Lowles posted false information about Muslim women being attacked with acid, as well as sharing the 'hoax list'. Both of these tweets 'mobilised people'. He also owns/runs 'HopeNotHate'. Besides, my initial post wasn't about 'the other side'. This thread is about 'keyboard warriors' of which Nick Lowles is one. If he published inflammatory false information then fuck him, prosecute! The thing with excusing 'racist bellends', is if you don't know all of them personally, you can't call all of them racist, that's been the argument as far as I've seen. That’s weak by your normal standards. Are you saying these knuckle draggers were so thick they didn’t know what they were doing was racist or motivated by racism? See this 'if he', he fucking did. The evidence is there for all to see. You're complaining about others brining things up but can't even be arsed to find the truth. Are you saying that every single person who got involved in any riot is racist? Without doubt? That sounds very much like guilty without trial. Fuck that and if that's what you want, then good luck to you. BTW, very few (if any) of the people prosecuted so far have been prosecuted for racially motivated crimes. You seem very angry Feisty. Why is that? Ok he did it. Prosecute him then. Simple! And yeah if you join a riot that is purportedly about immigrants with people around you chanting anti immigrant songs and then targeting locations linked with immigrants, then yes you are racist but perhaps too thick to realise in some cases. You know there are some posters in here who seem to think they are being clever with the whole two sides argument etc but sometimes some things are simply inexcusable and indefensible. Some things are just plain wrong. Not angry, I just have a want for a fair judiciary and fair trial. If you'd prefer guilty without trial then we'll never agree. Some things, like riots are inexcusable but to call them racist riots when you have no idea of everyone's motivations is just simple bullshit. You can call everyone who took part in the 'hotel burning' a racist. You can't call everyone who pelted the police racist. I hope you hold all of the 'pro palestine' marchers to the same standard. " There's a difference between calling the riots racist and all the rioters racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. " He gets away with incitement all the time, formerly unrecognised. Once a Searchlight Magazine journalist, now a leading figure in Hope not Hate. He pretends to be against violence and racial hatred, but he has always done his best to stir things up. Horrid little man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. He gets away with incitement all the time, formerly unrecognised. Once a Searchlight Magazine journalist, now a leading figure in Hope not Hate. He pretends to be against violence and racial hatred, but he has always done his best to stir things up. Horrid little man." You've clearly not read it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/official-complaint-sent-to-labour-over-mps-highly-irresponsible-social-media-post-13195336 *****Official complaint sent to Labour over MP's 'highly irresponsible' social media post Labour Against Antisemitism has called on Sir Keir Starmer to expel Clive Lewis over a post he wrote in the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on a school-turned-shelter in Gaza.***** " I briefly read it and think they're clutching at straws. The MP is correlating two issues but isn't inciting violence or hatred. Just the giving of an opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/official-complaint-sent-to-labour-over-mps-highly-irresponsible-social-media-post-13195336 *****Official complaint sent to Labour over MP's 'highly irresponsible' social media post Labour Against Antisemitism has called on Sir Keir Starmer to expel Clive Lewis over a post he wrote in the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on a school-turned-shelter in Gaza.***** I briefly read it and think they're clutching at straws. The MP is correlating two issues but isn't inciting violence or hatred. Just the giving of an opinion." Exactly..
It's the cause and affect issue.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte" I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right?" There isn't. Rowley should know this so why bother with the Billy Big Bollocks routine? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions." Any proof of that? Or just stirring? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. Any proof of that? Or just stirring? " I have posted enough evidence about this. As you don't seem to have time to read, here it is again. The text from 2003 communications act that wannabe authoritarian Blair passed: " A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends 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; or " Tell me what "grossly offensive" means. This seems to be a clever trick that European politicians seem to use to deceive people into believing that they have free speech - Just write laws which are vaguely written and are up to interpretation. Use it to punish people by interpreting it arbitrarily. And the politicians have been fairly successful in deceiving people too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law? I'll be happy when Nick Lowles is punished. If the woman who has been arrested incited these riots, then Nick Lowles incited Muslims to get tooled up and go looking for the EDL. He gets away with incitement all the time, formerly unrecognised. Once a Searchlight Magazine journalist, now a leading figure in Hope not Hate. He pretends to be against violence and racial hatred, but he has always done his best to stir things up. Horrid little man." What did he actually post? And when is it that Hope Not Hate triggers you so much? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but if anyone is using any platform to incite hate crimes /rioting then they should face consequences?? " Absolutely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. Any proof of that? Or just stirring? I have posted enough evidence about this. As you don't seem to have time to read, here it is again. The text from 2003 communications act that wannabe authoritarian Blair passed: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends 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; or Tell me what "grossly offensive" means. This seems to be a clever trick that European politicians seem to use to deceive people into believing that they have free speech - Just write laws which are vaguely written and are up to interpretation. Use it to punish people by interpreting it arbitrarily. And the politicians have been fairly successful in deceiving people too." In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. Any proof of that? Or just stirring? I have posted enough evidence about this. As you don't seem to have time to read, here it is again. The text from 2003 communications act that wannabe authoritarian Blair passed: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends 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; or Tell me what "grossly offensive" means. This seems to be a clever trick that European politicians seem to use to deceive people into believing that they have free speech - Just write laws which are vaguely written and are up to interpretation. Use it to punish people by interpreting it arbitrarily. And the politicians have been fairly successful in deceiving people too. In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up. "
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Not very Fetch then? Oh doh just realised Key Board Warriors. Fuck me that was slow of me. "Are people just too lazy to type entire words or names now? I always seek to he decoding set of initials and abbreviations, trying to guess wtf people are trying to convey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a clear line must be drawn. In the case that's highlighted in the news, he made a clear call for violence to burn down the building. So it's deserved. But the laws around this issue are a bit vague in the country and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being misused to suppress opinions. Any proof of that? Or just stirring? I have posted enough evidence about this. As you don't seem to have time to read, here it is again. The text from 2003 communications act that wannabe authoritarian Blair passed: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends 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; or Tell me what "grossly offensive" means. This seems to be a clever trick that European politicians seem to use to deceive people into believing that they have free speech - Just write laws which are vaguely written and are up to interpretation. Use it to punish people by interpreting it arbitrarily. And the politicians have been fairly successful in deceiving people too. In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing."I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive. You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation. "That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"? Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now. Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws."Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech. Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
"If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? It’s fair to raise this but are you happy to agree that the recent rioters and those inciting these riots are complete bellends who deserve being punished to the full extent of the law?" Of course they are complete bell ends, anyone who thinks they should be excused is also a bell end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on the Leeds riots? How many of them have been hunted down and sent to jail? Quite a number." Have they really? I’ll take your word for it, I can’t be bothered to look it up, it very wasn’t plastered all over the media like the other rioters. Did they also get long sentences? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Americans will tell Mark Rowley do one and he would be able to do nothing about it. The audacity in even suggesting this idea "Exactly, why has he opened himself up for such ridicule? The yanks won’t be shitting themselves, they’ll be pissing themselves laughing! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day."Hi. Stop making stuff up about me. You’re miles away from the truth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day.
Hi. Stop making stuff up about me. You’re miles away from the truth "I am not making stuff up. The whole point of free speech is that the government shouldn't be able to take action on words spoken by individuals. No country has absolute free speech. But some countries like the US has very limited number of exemptions and they are clearly defined. Saying that the law must be "flexible" enough for the government and police to apply them arbitrarily goes against the very definition of free speech. You cannot be pro-free-speech and also support this kind of authoritarianism. "Daddy government knows what they are doing" is a ridiculous assumption to make. As I said above, it Reform UK wins the election, would you be happy to let them define what "grossly offensinve" means? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day."Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.S. what are “KB warriors”? Should I know? Am I no longer “down with the kids” and out of touch? Not very Fetch then? Oh doh just realised Key Board Warriors. Fuck me that was slow of me.
Are people just too lazy to type entire words or names now? I always seek to he decoding set of initials and abbreviations, trying to guess ******wtf ****** people are trying to convey. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day.
Hi. Stop making stuff up about me. You’re miles away from the truth
I am not making stuff up. The whole point of free speech is that the government shouldn't be able to take action on words spoken by individuals. No country has absolute free speech. But some countries like the US has very limited number of exemptions and they are clearly defined.
Saying that the law must be "flexible" enough for the government and police to apply them arbitrarily goes against the very definition of free speech. You cannot be pro-free-speech and also support this kind of authoritarianism. "Daddy government knows what they are doing" is a ridiculous assumption to make. As I said above, it Reform UK wins the election, would you be happy to let them define what "grossly offensinve" means?"Human Rights, Article 10 freedom of expression, however... Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to: protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety. prevent disorder or crime. protect health or morals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a fast-moving environment, where technology, platforms, communication methods change so rapidly, the law needs to have an element of flexibility about it in order to have any chance of keeping up.
Lmao!! Keep telling these ridiculous lies to yourself while being cucked by politicians and police.
Laws should be clear. "Element of flexibility" is just a euphemism for applying these laws arbitrarily whenever they feel like it. This is the kind of shit that leads to two tier policing. If laws are clear, it would be much harder to do two tier policing.
I disagree. If a law aims to be “clear”, that typically means that it is prescriptive / exhaustive, which leaves gaps that lawyers and offenders exploit. And in an area like tech, a law would become obsolete in no time if it had aimed to be exhaustive.
You seem to be afraid of government / motives etc . I’m not. I know I’m not at any risk of falling foul of such legislation.
That's the thing about free speech. People like you enjoy curtailing free speech until your favourite party is in power. Would you be happy if Reform becomes a major power and they decide what constitutes "grossly offensive"?
Hell if a deeply religious party wins election, fabswingers will be "grossly offensive" and all of us will be in prison by now.
Why don't you be honest and just accept that you like authoritarian governments as long as they align with your own political values? There is no point doing these mental gymnastics to justify the ridiculous laws.
Well you’re way off the mark, suggesting I am a fan of authoritarian governments, or am a supporter of curtailing free speech.
Our views of what constitutes “free speech” may differ though.
If you really cared about free speech, you would never let governments and policemen use arbitrary definitions like these to arrest whoever the fuck they want. You like "free speech" as long as it aligns with your own values. The whole point of free speech is that people could say even things which you find offensive. These are just words at the end of the day.
Hi. Stop making stuff up about me. You’re miles away from the truth
I am not making stuff up. The whole point of free speech is that the government shouldn't be able to take action on words spoken by individuals. No country has absolute free speech. But some countries like the US has very limited number of exemptions and they are clearly defined.
Saying that the law must be "flexible" enough for the government and police to apply them arbitrarily goes against the very definition of free speech. You cannot be pro-free-speech and also support this kind of authoritarianism. "Daddy government knows what they are doing" is a ridiculous assumption to make. As I said above, it Reform UK wins the election, would you be happy to let them define what "grossly offensinve" means?
Human Rights, Article 10 freedom of expression, however...
Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to: protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety. prevent disorder or crime. protect health or morals."Yes and that goes against free-speech. The ECHR promises free-speech only in name. There are enough vague exemptions in it for any government to curtail free speech in whichever way they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes and that goes against free-speech. The ECHR promises free-speech only in name. There are enough vague exemptions in it for any government to curtail free speech in whichever way they want. " Free Speech in the UK is largely a myth. Free Speech only applies to things that aren't illegal to say . . . As most argument around free speech usually want to include those things, it's easy to see that there really isn't free speech at all. At the simplest level: Tell a Policeman to F'off, and he will warn you not to say it again, say it again, and he has the right to arrest and charge with offensive language. So your choice is yours, but it is really just a freedom to be arrested if you use such speech. ********In the United Kingdom, censorship has been applied to various forms of expression such as the media, cinema, entertainment venues, literature, theatre and criticism of the monarchy. While there is no general right to free speech in the UK, British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, and since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act. However: Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason, sedition, obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting (including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors), time, manner, and place restrictions, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising. As of 2022, the United Kingdom is ranked 35th on the Press Freedom Index. *********** Labour have recently decided to delay (they actually mean don't allow it to become law) the university free speech legislation the conservatives had set before leaving power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do have to be careful with what you share to be sure. Keep in mind whatever is being said in any post shared is as good as saying it yourself. What those convicted so far actually posted online were do appear to be calls for violence in one form or another. We're not too worried about freedom of speech being affected at the moment." Ditto.. Most people are rational and if they aren't and they cross the line as regards the law then they can't complain or whine about their right to free speech being worded.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do have to be careful with what you share to be sure. Keep in mind whatever is being said in any post shared is as good as saying it yourself. What those convicted so far actually posted online were do appear to be calls for violence in one form or another. We're not too worried about freedom of speech being affected at the moment. Ditto.. Most people are rational and if they aren't and they cross the line as regards the law then they can't complain or whine about their right to free speech being worded.." The problem is with the law itself that goes against free speech. By your argument, even China has free speech because they also pretty much allow you to say everything except a long list of things you aren't allowed to say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right? There isn't. Rowley should know this so why bother with the Billy Big Bollocks routine?" Because whilst there is no extradition treaty with the US , slapping a big old “international arrest warrant” on him would certainly curtail where he could travel to/from The problem is that people conflate freedom of speech, with freedom of expression! And people want freedom of speech , but don’t like the freedom of consequence that comes with freedom of speech! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right? There isn't. Rowley should know this so why bother with the Billy Big Bollocks routine? Because whilst there is no extradition treaty with the US , slapping a big old “international arrest warrant” on him would certainly curtail where he could travel to/from The problem is that people conflate freedom of speech, with freedom of expression! And people want freedom of speech , but don’t like the freedom of consequence that comes with freedom of speech! " International Arrest Warrant
Funniest shit you've ever come up with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do have to be careful with what you share to be sure. Keep in mind whatever is being said in any post shared is as good as saying it yourself. What those convicted so far actually posted online were do appear to be calls for violence in one form or another. We're not too worried about freedom of speech being affected at the moment. Ditto.. Most people are rational and if they aren't and they cross the line as regards the law then they can't complain or whine about their right to free speech being worded.. The problem is with the law itself that goes against free speech. By your argument, even China has free speech because they also pretty much allow you to say everything except a long list of things you aren't allowed to say." Enticing or encouraging others to bomb anywhere with people inside has got nothing do with free speech .. Her lawyers must be really silly then if they didn't put that forward as a defence.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right? There isn't. Rowley should know this so why bother with the Billy Big Bollocks routine? Because whilst there is no extradition treaty with the US , slapping a big old “international arrest warrant” on him would certainly curtail where he could travel to/from The problem is that people conflate freedom of speech, with freedom of expression! And people want freedom of speech , but don’t like the freedom of consequence that comes with freedom of speech! " Freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Government taking action on you. If government can take action on you for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do have to be careful with what you share to be sure. Keep in mind whatever is being said in any post shared is as good as saying it yourself. What those convicted so far actually posted online were do appear to be calls for violence in one form or another. We're not too worried about freedom of speech being affected at the moment. Ditto.. Most people are rational and if they aren't and they cross the line as regards the law then they can't complain or whine about their right to free speech being worded.. The problem is with the law itself that goes against free speech. By your argument, even China has free speech because they also pretty much allow you to say everything except a long list of things you aren't allowed to say. Enticing or encouraging others to bomb anywhere with people inside has got nothing do with free speech .. Her lawyers must be really silly then if they didn't put that forward as a defence.. " Calls for violence are punishable sure. But the laws we have go far beyond that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do have to be careful with what you share to be sure. Keep in mind whatever is being said in any post shared is as good as saying it yourself. What those convicted so far actually posted online were do appear to be calls for violence in one form or another. We're not too worried about freedom of speech being affected at the moment. Ditto.. Most people are rational and if they aren't and they cross the line as regards the law then they can't complain or whine about their right to free speech being worded.. The problem is with the law itself that goes against free speech. By your argument, even China has free speech because they also pretty much allow you to say everything except a long list of things you aren't allowed to say. Enticing or encouraging others to bomb anywhere with people inside has got nothing do with free speech .. Her lawyers must be really silly then if they didn't put that forward as a defence.. Calls for violence are punishable sure. But the laws we have go far beyond that" 👍🏻 and probably going to get worse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So our top cop is threatening to extradite US citizens for social media posts! ROFL!! https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-social-media-posts-we-come-afte I believe there is no extradition treaty with the USA right? There isn't. Rowley should know this so why bother with the Billy Big Bollocks routine? Because whilst there is no extradition treaty with the US , slapping a big old “international arrest warrant” on him would certainly curtail where he could travel to/from The problem is that people conflate freedom of speech, with freedom of expression! And people want freedom of speech , but don’t like the freedom of consequence that comes with freedom of speech! International Arrest Warrant
Funniest shit you've ever come up with. "There is such a thing. An American can travel to another nation and be arrested as soon as setting foot upon their soil. If they stay in the US they cannot be touched. I remember reading about some dude visiting Austria, and being jailed for five years over something he had said while visiting there something like 17 years previously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
