FabSwingers.com mobile

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

Freedom of Speech

Jump to newest
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk

Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.

The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.

But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?

Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.

With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
11 weeks ago

Border of London


"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.

The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.

But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?

Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.

With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat? "

What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.

(N**** Heil H*****)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.

The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.

But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?

Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.

With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat?

What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.

(N**** Heil H*****)"

Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
11 weeks ago

Border of London


"

What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.

(N**** Heil H*****)

Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime "

It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"

What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.

(N**** Heil H*****)

Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime

It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech."

Just about anything can be called hateful these days tho, which is kinda why I asked the question.

“You’ve made me anxious so you’ve committed a crime”. Some people believe this to be the law and the police are acting upon these complaints.

I used to photograph university graduates and would often hear “I’m really anxious about the photos”. They came voluntarily so could hardly claim it way my fault they were anxious.

I guess the question is at what point should people be held responsible for keeping themselves away from stuff that makes them anxious and at what point should the police step in?

You can’t complain about hearing anti Israel speech at a Palestinian rally for example. But you see people arrested for counter protest for saying exactly the same things in a different place.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ggdrasil66Man
11 weeks ago

Saltdean

I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
11 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

and cue a deluge of paranoid fascist hippies about being victims in todays society ... bloddy wierdos

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire

Why is the fact not understood that if you break the law's of the land you take the risk that if caught you'll be dealt with..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 09/05/25 14:22:15]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *estivalMan
11 weeks ago

borehamwood


"

What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.

(N**** Heil H*****)

Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime

It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech."
if he has released it in america no problem they can pretty much say what they want

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London

The freedom of speech rights article in the human rights act/ECHR is as useful as a condom made out of paper.

Even the American first amendment has exceptions for free speech. But they very clear and in case of doubt, the courts are expected to lean more in favour of free speech than to arrest people.

Here are the list of exceptions in Europe's human rights law:

-protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or -public safety

-prevent disorder or crime

-protect health or morals

-protect the rights and reputations of other people

-prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence

-m aintain the authority and impartiality of judges

Many of them in the list are dubious. The most ridiculous one here is "protect health and morals"

Morals are different in different societies. Basically a political party can pass any law against free speech and defend it by saying it's for moral reasons. So in practice, the human rights act doesn't do anything to protect your freedom of speech.

This is the reason why many European countries including the UK during Blair era managed to pass laws against free speech and ECHR did nothing to stop. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK today.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!"

Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!

Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc .."

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
11 weeks ago

The Outer Rim


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested. "

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip "

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
11 weeks ago

The Outer Rim


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines "

what garbage!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!

Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested. "

Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..

Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc ..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines "

Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..

Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..

It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines

Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..

Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..

It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either.."

The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *crumdiddlyumptiousMan
11 weeks ago

.


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines

Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..

Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..

It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either..

The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith. "

No one should be allowed to join a religion group until the age of 16 or 18, let them make their own mind up instead of brainwashing them from birth

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!

Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..

Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc .."

It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London

Either way, as I mentioned in the previous post, the human rights act does absolutely nothing to protect your freedom of speech. It just creates an illusion that it does. The fact that they have an exemption that allows governments to pass laws against free speech for "protecting morals" basically nullifies everything the article says about protecting free speech.

Politicians being power hungry fucks do everything possible to exploit this and pass authoritarian laws to take away our rights

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip

No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines

Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..

Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..

It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either..

The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Central


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!

Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..

And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..

The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.

Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..

Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc ..

It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism. "

Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.

I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech. There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"

It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism.

Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.

"

When it comes to free speech, any law that leaves too much to interpretation will be misused by police and politicians. Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy. He was doing it as an act of protest. Is his motivation wrong? Religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If it's ok to burn the "Wealth of nations" or the "Communist Manifesto", it should be ok to burn the Quran or the Bible..


"

I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech. "

The human rights law has been there forever. But it doesn't do anything to protect free speech because any government can pass a law and claim the "protecting morals" exemption. This is how Tony Blair managed to pass these anti free-speech laws.


"

There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense?

"

If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
11 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Why is the fact not understood that if you break the law's of the land you take the risk that if caught you'll be dealt with..

"

They complain about it being a “freedom of speech” issue when what they want is freedom from consequences…..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"Why is the fact not understood that if you break the law's of the land you take the risk that if caught you'll be dealt with..

They complain about it being a “freedom of speech” issue when what they want is freedom from consequences….. "

That's quite a spicy take on Charlie Hebdo

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London

I have mentioned this before. But the "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line that the progressives use is very evidence that they are all authoritarians.

Freedom to do something means freedom from legal/violent consequences after doing that thing. If you get arrested for speaking something you don't have freedom of speech. If you face violence for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. It's like saying you have freedom to be gay, but you maybe arrested for being gay.

Funnily enough, the line is just paraphrasing Idi Amin's famous quote "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech". Given that the biggest challenge for modern day progressives is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, wouldn't it be better to stay away from a dictator's quotes?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy."

He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".

No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy.

He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".

No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame."

That's a ridiculous excuse. Who does a protest become harassment or intimidation? Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy."


"He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".

No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame."


"That's a ridiculous excuse. Who does a protest become harassment or intimidation?"

It becomes harassment when you choose to protest in a way that you know will offend people, and you do it that way specifically to gain attention by causing that offence.

The guy you are talking about was protesting against the Turkish president. How does burning a Quran achieve that? It doesn't, he was just aiming to get attention.


"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were."

Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.

If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Central


"

It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism.

Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.

When it comes to free speech, any law that leaves too much to interpretation will be misused by police and politicians. Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy. He was doing it as an act of protest. Is his motivation wrong? Religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If it's ok to burn the "Wealth of nations" or the "Communist Manifesto", it should be ok to burn the Quran or the Bible..

I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech.

The human rights law has been there forever. But it doesn't do anything to protect free speech because any government can pass a law and claim the "protecting morals" exemption. This is how Tony Blair managed to pass these anti free-speech laws.

There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense?

If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse?"
.

The whataboutery has to be tackled should things arise.

Sure governments should draft laws that are precise and clear. But circumstances will change and review is needed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"

It becomes harassment when you choose to protest in a way that you know will offend people, and you do it that way specifically to gain attention by causing that offence.

"

There are lots of things religious people consider offensive. Should we arrest everyone for that? It's a lame excuse for authoritarianism taking away right to expression. Going by your criteria, you can never mock any religion.


"

The guy you are talking about was protesting against the Turkish president. How does burning a Quran achieve that? It doesn't, he was just aiming to get attention.

"

The whole point of a protest is to get attention. No one was physically attacked or injured.


"

Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were.

Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.

"

Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre

https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511

People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran


"

If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law. "

Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it.

If you really want such laws, that's fine. But it is authoritarianism and is applied disproportionately.

If burning a book would result in some extremists to resort to violence and disrupt public order, it's only those extremists who must be arrested, not the one who burned the book.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"

If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse?.

The whataboutery has to be tackled should things arise.

Sure governments should draft laws that are precise and clear. But circumstances will change and review is needed "

That's a cop out. People like you enjoy anti free-speech laws as long as you it's your opponent whose opinion is being suppressed. You don't even want to imagine a world where the opponent gains political power and starts suppressing your opinions.

Expressing one's views is a fundamental aspect of humanity. We shouldn't let power hungry politicians, from the left wing not from the right wing, to take away our right to expression.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *AJMLKTV/TS
11 weeks ago

Burley

Freedom of speech is a right you can only exercise when nobody else can hear you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By * wheel drive tractorMan
11 weeks ago

North Lonsdon


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!"
. Sadly we no longer have freedom of speech in this country if your opinions do not meet the narrative of the woke loving liberal elite who will not tolerate any opinions that differ to theirs. Most people will not risk losing their jobs so have no alternative butto keep quiet and suppress their opinions.

The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
11 weeks ago

The Outer Rim


"

The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election. "

we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By * wheel drive tractorMan
11 weeks ago

North Lonsdon


"

The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election.

we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps. "
. You might wish to ignore opinion polls but to many people they are good indication of the direction of travel. Not many people have indicated any enthusiasm for the current government. They do not appear to have any achievements and simply surrended to the rail unions in oder to achieve a pay settlement and likewise with junior Doctors.

Any enthusiasm for Kier Starmer is in freefall.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were."


"Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group."


"Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre

https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511

People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran"

In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.


"If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law."


"Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it."

He's a rabbi, who burned a Christian bible that had been hidden in his synagogue. Not the same thing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
11 weeks ago

in Lancashire

There's little enthusiasm for any of the political leaders and that's been the case for decades, often it's the party in power become so bad the other options are taken because as is often said 'this lot are less shit than the other lot'..

We've seen what populism and an easily (one might even say gullible) convinced by clichés and hollow false promises electorate can lead to with both Brexit and Boris and his empty words..

I don't need to be enthusiastic about any leader, like millions of others I just want effective competent governance but the cult of divisive populist snake oil sellers is not the answer..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were.

Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.

Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre

https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511

People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran

In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.

"

What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article.

And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime? I have seen people post horrible things about Christianity and Jesus. What you are saying isn't "inciting racial hatred", but blasphemy laws, because there is no race involved here but just mockery of religion.


"

If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law.

Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it.

He's a rabbi, who burned a Christian bible that had been hidden in his synagogue. Not the same thing."

Doesn't that show "hatred" towards Christianity? There was also a bible torn into pieces in the Speakers Corner in London last year. No arrest was made.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
11 weeks ago

West Suffolk

People have the right to believe whatever fairytales they want. And they enjoy the right to shout about their chosen fairytale.

Not believing has the same protected status but shouting about not believing in some fairytales seems to be frowned upon.

I think a certain amount of common sense needs to be applied to the notion of free speech, but the race card is often played when there is no racism. And anti white racism doesn’t seem to get the same response.

I remember at the height of the BLM movement after George Floyd died, many of my white liberal friends were posting their support on social media. But then saying shit like “if anyone else sends me a message saying white lives matter as well, they are getting blocked”

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
11 weeks ago

Gilfach


"In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'."


"What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article."

Of course you don't see it in the article. If the words used were inciting radial hatred, it would be illegal to re-print them.


"And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime?"

It isn't. Is illegal to display hatred based on religion or ethnicity, or to encourage others to do so. Saying "Islam is evil" in a video of you burning a Quran is illegal. Simply burning a book without making a fuss of it isn't illegal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London


"In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.

What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article.

Of course you don't see it in the article. If the words used were inciting radial hatred, it would be illegal to re-print them.

"

If something written in the post was the reason why they were charged, they would have clearly said it. The arrests were because they burned the book. The act of burning the book itself is deemed as "inciting racial hatred". Today, if you go out in public and burn a Quran, you will be arrested for the same reason.

The funny thing is there is no "race" involved here, only religion. So practically, UK has blasphemy laws.


"

And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime?

It isn't. Is illegal to display hatred based on religion or ethnicity, or to encourage others to do so. Saying "Islam is evil" in a video of you burning a Quran is illegal. Simply burning a book without making a fuss of it isn't illegal."

You are doing some serious mental gymnastics here. Lots of people have publicly said "Christianity is evil". Why is saying "Islam is evil" deemed as hatred? Religions are just ideologies at the end of the day. Why is saying that an ideology is evil deemed as a crime?

The 2003 communications act and the 2006 Racial and religious hatred laws were passed by Tony Blair. Both the laws are so vaguely worded to ensure that politicians and police have the power to arrest people for wrong think. That's why we see so many cases of these laws being applied inconsistently. All this while people are given an illusion that they have protections for freedom of expression.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ggdrasil66Man
11 weeks ago

Saltdean

One day they will be able to read our thoughts, god help us all when that happens. Keeping them to ourselves won’t be an option.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *penminddmanMan
11 weeks ago

Lisburn

It’s been under threat since before the hysteria and BS during the virus nonsense. To many snow flake type wafer thin skin type people about in recent times. They go out looking to be offended

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
11 weeks ago

London

"Ireland given two months to begin implementing hate speech laws or face legal action from EU"

We can be a sovereign country inside the EU, we were told.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
10 weeks ago

North Bucks

Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
10 weeks ago

London


"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming. "

What story?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
10 weeks ago

North Bucks


"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.

What story?"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/

Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.

Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
10 weeks ago

London


"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.

What story?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/

Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.

Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.

"

Yeah I saw that. This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws around free speech. Police will start enforcing them arbitrarily and they will make mistakes like these.

It's also interesting that the same police force that complains about not having enough resources to investigate serious crimes like burglaries seem to have a lot of time to police tweets

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
10 weeks ago

The Outer Rim


"

The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election.

we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps. . You might wish to ignore opinion polls but to many people they are good indication of the direction of travel. Not many people have indicated any enthusiasm for the current government. They do not appear to have any achievements and simply surrended to the rail unions in oder to achieve a pay settlement and likewise with junior Doctors.

Any enthusiasm for Kier Starmer is in freefall. "

hi and thanks for the reply. It's safe to ignore opinion poles as the only thing that matters is what happens on the the day. On the day of the last general election the current government won with a whopping 412 seats, completely annihilating the conservative and unionist party, mostly because the silent majority disliked sunaks cabinet's self indulgent toxic far right nonsense. I prefer to do my own research rather than pay credence to the polls and focus on the facts. Hope this helps.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ggdrasil66Man
10 weeks ago

Saltdean

I don’t take much notice of the opinion polls, the proof of Reform UK over taking the LabCon was cemented by the recent election results. Too far ahead to be any kind of fluke, or to be explained away as a protest vote.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
10 weeks ago

Gilfach


"On the day of the last general election the current government won with a whopping 412 seats, completely annihilating the conservative and unionist party, mostly because the silent majority disliked sunaks cabinet's self indulgent toxic far right nonsense."

I don't recall the people that voted for Labour being silent about their dislike for the Tories. In fact, I seem to remember them being quite vocal about it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
10 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.

What story?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/

Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.

Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.

"

Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out.

If you watch any of the PINAC videos on YouTube where they are taking video of a business, the police always come out yet there’s no crime.

Why are the police wasting so much time on “non crime” events and at the same time if you report a crime they ain’t interested in doing anything other than issuing a crime number.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
10 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out."

The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly".

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
10 weeks ago

Terra Firma

Was it last years riots sparked by the tragic events in Southport that have increased scrutiny towards online messages by the police and public, or was it always there just less known about.

I feel something has changed but can't put my finger on the "what".

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
10 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out.

The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly"."

But the complainant doesn’t know if there is hate or not so how can they objectively decide? “I think” or much more commonly “I feel” are the first words out of their mouth.

And “don’t be silly” is not the same as “what you’ve described isn’t a crime, we suggest you block the other individual and if it happens again it could well be harassment, in which case we’ll investigate”

But let’s assume a message posted online sails a little close to the wind and the police go visit the person who posted it. If they say “well there was no hate or malice or intention to cause alarm or distress on my part”…. What next? Court? The police only collect evidence, it’s the courts who decide guilt. But they don’t want to take that route, they pressure the people to admit a non crime hate event and get them to sign community resolution orders to “make it go away”.

I’m gonna bet these stay on the national crime database and possibly show up on an extended DBS search as it’s information held by the police. I don’t know. But that could affect a persons ability to get work in a few professions when all that’s happened is someone has claimed hurt feelings. How is that reasonable?

Much of UK civil law and low level crime centres around what a reasonable person would think or do. In my opinion, what’s considered “unreasonable” is including a lot more now than it used to.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
10 weeks ago

Gilfach


"The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly"."


"But the complainant doesn’t know if there is hate or not so how can they objectively decide? “I think” or much more commonly “I feel” are the first words out of their mouth."

Agreed, but that's the way the laws are written.


"And “don’t be silly” is not the same as “what you’ve described isn’t a crime ...”"

But what they've described *is* a crime, if it was motivated by hate. That's the impossible situation the police are in where they have to investigate even the smallest of offences, but can have no hard evidence for motivation, and therefore no proof of whether a crime has actually been committed.


"But they don’t want to take that route, they pressure the people to admit a non crime hate event and get them to sign community resolution orders to “make it go away”."

Exactly. Otherwise it would go down as another unresolved crime and it would make the stats look bad.


"I’m gonna bet these stay on the national crime database and possibly show up on an extended DBS search as it’s information held by the police. I don’t know. But that could affect a persons ability to get work in a few professions when all that’s happened is someone has claimed hurt feelings."

They do show up on an extended DBS search, and they already have prevented some people from advancing in their careers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
10 weeks ago

West Suffolk

A crime without evidence?

You saying that reminded me of when my bike got nicked when I was about 17. I’d cycled to a mates house but when it was time to leave it was hammering it down so his dad gave me a lift home in his car. My bike was in his garage and he left the garage door open so he could drive back in without getting soaked. But when he got back my bike was gone.

When I called the police to report it, they wouldn’t accept the report because I hadn’t seen it was no longer there. I got their point but I just waited an hour and said I’d been down there to see it wasn’t there.

Pointless to report a nicked bike even back then, but now got more chance of them taking it seriously if I say the bike has been offended by a Facebook post than it being nicked

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oan of DArcCouple
9 weeks ago

Glasgow


"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.

I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.

So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!. Sadly we no longer have freedom of speech in this country if your opinions do not meet the narrative of the woke loving liberal elite who will not tolerate any opinions that differ to theirs. Most people will not risk losing their jobs so have no alternative butto keep quiet and suppress their opinions.

The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election. "

--------------------------

Presumably you supported the Islamist who was arrested, convicted and fined for burning poppies during an Armistice Day protest in London?

As a signed up member of the 'woke loving, liberal elite', I was delighted he was dealt with through the criminal justice system.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
9 weeks ago

dudley


"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.

The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.

But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?

Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.

With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat? "

Of course it's under threat from tyrannical politician's, civil servants and judges bigging it up anarco style,

Also the echr has missed out stuff like no explicit right to sunlight or an health environment, like theysay if it ain't written down it ain't worth having.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anceLinkMan
9 weeks ago

Tyneside

Why what do you think we can't say?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *arry and MegsCouple
8 weeks ago

Ipswich


"You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!"

If that were true there wouldn't be many people left on fab

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Why what do you think we can't say?"

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
8 weeks ago


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub. "

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *teinsGateDuoCouple
8 weeks ago

Newcastle under Lyme


"Hateful, if not hate speech."

Just had a quick listen to it. Clearly like his Twitter posts intended for shock factor.

That said, he's rapping that people misinterpret what's he's trying to say on his social media. He's also mentioning that despite his fame and fortune he can't see his kids. So that goes towards him acting like a dick for shock factor.

Of course it's understandable you would assume he's some sort of brown shirt because that's what media is programming you to think.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it. "

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

What if for example, two parents were talking about the school bully and the staff member happens to be their mother. Precious little Jonny is now bullying the parents by proxy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
8 weeks ago


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

"

They absolutely have the right to do so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so."

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
8 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to "

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
8 weeks ago


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

"

Really? There’s a reform pub in Blackpool. How long would a few lefty activists last if they wanted a nice pint in there?

We all have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

I’m dealing with a case at work where someone has posted some pretty nasty stuff on social media against LGBTQ+. Which is fine, except their employer is in their bio, and they even doubled down when someone included the company’s account in a response to them.

They’ll face disciplinary action and rightly so. The colleague was free to say those things, and the company are free to discipline them as a result.

I believe it’s called ‘fuck around and find out’

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
8 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to "

This is not the essence of the bill for this particular part of the proposal.

It is basically improving the equality act, taking reasonable steps to protect workers from abuse and harassment.

Reasonable steps would be signs to say abuse is not tolerated, policies in place for staff to follow, training staff on how to deal with abusive customers etc.

This is aimed more at customer facing staff such as retail, hospitality etc.

The bill doesn't allow staff to say they are not happy with what customers are talking about to have them closed down and removed, unless the conversation led them to being abusive or harassing the worker.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

"

That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
8 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

Really? There’s a reform pub in Blackpool. How long would a few lefty activists last if they wanted a nice pint in there?

We all have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

I’m dealing with a case at work where someone has posted some pretty nasty stuff on social media against LGBTQ+. Which is fine, except their employer is in their bio, and they even doubled down when someone included the company’s account in a response to them.

They’ll face disciplinary action and rightly so. The colleague was free to say those things, and the company are free to discipline them as a result.

I believe it’s called ‘fuck around and find out’ "

Yes really..

Regardless of what memo the area manager sends out about staff doing this that or the other in relation to the changes in the legislation the management are judged on sales and turnover..

If footfall drops off because the staff are acting like someone out of 1984 then who do you think in the reality of any financial situation is going to be moved on..?

Tbh if anyone goes into any type of pub or establishment for a drink and they start using language or being disrespectful etc then other punters will probably make sure they leave and not have them spoil their enjoyment..

What's a reform pub?

Do they serve gammon and chips ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
8 weeks ago

in Lancashire


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

This is not the essence of the bill for this particular part of the proposal.

It is basically improving the equality act, taking reasonable steps to protect workers from abuse and harassment.

Reasonable steps would be signs to say abuse is not tolerated, policies in place for staff to follow, training staff on how to deal with abusive customers etc.

This is aimed more at customer facing staff such as retail, hospitality etc.

The bill doesn't allow staff to say they are not happy with what customers are talking about to have them closed down and removed, unless the conversation led them to being abusive or harassing the worker."

This sounds more sensible and practical..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
8 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal "

Employees aren’t protected for being “offended.” They are protected against harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal.

If an employer has made reasonable efforts to ensure harassment and discrimination are not tolerated and incidents are correctly managed that is the end of their obligation. They must also follow further employment laws when it comes to managing people out of a business fairly, the worker has then exhausted their rights.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"Why what do you think we can't say?

If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.

So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.

If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.

Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.

Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.

They absolutely have the right to do so.

Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to

Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..

The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..

That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal

Employees aren’t protected for being “offended.” They are protected against harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal.

If an employer has made reasonable efforts to ensure harassment and discrimination are not tolerated and incidents are correctly managed that is the end of their obligation. They must also follow further employment laws when it comes to managing people out of a business fairly, the worker has then exhausted their rights. "

They have all of those rights already.

Not law yet but the workers rights bill in its current form goes further with regard to what people hear in the workplace. If I've got it wrong then great, happy days, but I don’t think I have.

I think it’s one of those things that sounds great in theory… black people shouldn’t have to overhear a racist jokes, gay people a gay joke, or Jews hear a Jews joke etc. saying these types of jokes and being accidentally overheard is not the same as deliberately saying one loudly in earshot of the a person who is the butt of the joke.

A joke for you….

“There’s and Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman…..”

I’d take a bet that these types of jokes play out differently, depending on your nationality.

How about “your mother is so fat….”

Whose mother are they talking about? Someone overhearing and claiming they were talking about theirs can’t be proven, but what it they were?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
8 weeks ago

London

A quote from the free speech union about the workers rights bill:

"Harassment is defined in Section 26 of the EqA as “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic and which violates a person’s dignity or has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. While the government insists this represents a high threshold, critics argue the vague language leaves room for over-interpretation, especially when it comes to speech-related incidents."

Yet again, British politicians are using vague language in laws related to free speech so that they can sneak in their authoritarianism. This is what they did with the 2003 communications act and 2006 religious hatred act, the effects of which are seen now.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk

There was a discussion in fb today about what you would do if you came home to find someone parked in your driveway. There were the obvious unlawful responses, smash the windows etc. and some more sensible ones. It’s a civil matter of course, one the police can’t legally intervene in unless it becomes aggravated.

But I just got to thinking, someone can park in your driveway or trespass on your property and the limit of your legal redress is to ask them to leave. Regardless of the impact that this has on you. Could be double yellows along the road and now you have to park half a mile away.

But if you read a post or a tweet that you don’t like you can call the police and claim it made you “anxious” and the poster can be dragged off in handcuffs.

What’s more serious, a wheelchair user not being able to enter their own home or a labour councillors wife not liking a tweet calling for his resignation

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
8 weeks ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 28/05/25 12:43:53]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
8 weeks ago

Terra Firma

I can see the issue here is around the interpretation of harassment.

The safety net however, is the legal requirement for employers to take “reasonable steps”.

If a customer is sitting at a table and being openly racist, to the point that a member of staff can hear and is upset by it, that should be a relatively simple situation to deal with, both under current law and under the new Bill.

However, for example, if a customer is having a discussion about veganism, and a member of staff feels offended by that, a reasonable step might be to offer the staff member the opportunity to swap duties or areas. That is a practical step and should be a policy that would be included in staff training.

If the same member of staff is being upset by comments of this kind more frequently, there should be a clear process to discuss if reasonable adjustments could be made, or to review whether the policy that was part of their training is understood and being followed.

If no resolution can be found, and it is affecting both the service of the business and the "employee’s wellbeing", a managed exit would be in the best outcome.

The Bill is about setting out workplace guidelines. If the above was followed I would not expect any repercussions for the Employer. I'm sure someone is going to point a flaw in this

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
8 weeks ago

Leeds


"woke loving liberal elite "

This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
8 weeks ago

Gilfach


"woke loving liberal elite"


"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"

Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
8 weeks ago

Leeds


"woke loving liberal elite

This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”

Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."

I think you’ve missed my point.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
8 weeks ago

Gilfach


"woke loving liberal elite"


"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"


"Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."


"I think you’ve missed my point. "

There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
8 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"I can see the issue here is around the interpretation of harassment.

The safety net however, is the legal requirement for employers to take “reasonable steps”.

If a customer is sitting at a table and being openly racist, to the point that a member of staff can hear and is upset by it, that should be a relatively simple situation to deal with, both under current law and under the new Bill.

However, for example, if a customer is having a discussion about veganism, and a member of staff feels offended by that, a reasonable step might be to offer the staff member the opportunity to swap duties or areas. That is a practical step and should be a policy that would be included in staff training.

If the same member of staff is being upset by comments of this kind more frequently, there should be a clear process to discuss if reasonable adjustments could be made, or to review whether the policy that was part of their training is understood and being followed.

If no resolution can be found, and it is affecting both the service of the business and the "employee’s wellbeing", a managed exit would be in the best outcome.

The Bill is about setting out workplace guidelines. If the above was followed I would not expect any repercussions for the Employer. I'm sure someone is going to point a flaw in this "

That as described is all well and good, as long as there are “other areas” and the member of staff is happy with that.

But some people go out of their way to be offended, and those types would probably consider them being moved as a punishment when they see the customer as the culprit

I’m not talking about racism, that already has laws in place. But you chose a good example. Much more likely to be the other way around tho in my opinion, the staff member being vegan and the customer talking about a great steakhouse they visited the night before.

Who gets to decide what’s ok and what’s not? Because the way I understand the current wording of the bill, is it’s the staff member.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 02/06/25 13:22:58]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London

And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
7 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x"

Seems racial hatred was the charge but I don’t see how religion is race related.

Don’t know details of the case but this could be a dangerous precedent

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x

Seems racial hatred was the charge but I don’t see how religion is race related.

Don’t know details of the case but this could be a dangerous precedent "

The interesting thing is that he was violently attacked by two extremists for burning the book. Only one of them was charged. No mention of the other

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
7 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x

Seems racial hatred was the charge but I don’t see how religion is race related.

Don’t know details of the case but this could be a dangerous precedent

The interesting thing is that he was violently attacked by two extremists for burning the book. Only one of them was charged. No mention of the other "

Just heard that Islam was actually cited specifically in the judgement, suggesting that it wouldn’t have been illegal if it was any other religious book.

Two tier justice again

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x

Seems racial hatred was the charge but I don’t see how religion is race related.

Don’t know details of the case but this could be a dangerous precedent

The interesting thing is that he was violently attacked by two extremists for burning the book. Only one of them was charged. No mention of the other "

A second man, Moussa Kadri, 59, from Kensington and Chelsea, has been charged with causing actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon.

Fixed it for you. Plus conviction was for religiously aggravated

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"And we are told that UK has freedom of speech and UK doesn't have blasphemy laws

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/man-who-burnt-quran-outside-turkish-consulate-found-guilty-7s8b50f8x

Seems racial hatred was the charge but I don’t see how religion is race related.

Don’t know details of the case but this could be a dangerous precedent

The interesting thing is that he was violently attacked by two extremists for burning the book. Only one of them was charged. No mention of the other

A second man, Moussa Kadri, 59, from Kensington and Chelsea, has been charged with causing actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon.

Fixed it for you. Plus conviction was for religiously aggravated"

Lol. You didn't fix anything. The guy who burned the book was attacked by two men. Only one of them was charged. In the article, they called Moussa Kadri the second man because the guy who burned the book was considered the first man. Hope you understand

Plus "religiously aggravated" is just a roundabout way of saying "blasphemy"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"

Just about anything can be called hateful these days tho, which is kinda why I asked the question.

“You’ve made me anxious so you’ve committed a crime”. Some people believe this to be the law and the police are acting upon these complaints.

"

There are hate incidents and hate crimes. There's a difference.

A hate incident would be verbal abuse directed at someone who is or is perceived to have a protected characteristic or refusing service to someone possessing or perceived to possess a protected characteristic.

A hate crime is an incident that would be a crime on its own, so criminal damage, assault etc., but has been motivated by prejudice towards people possessing/perceived to possess the protected characteristic.

There are 5 characteristics for which there is an uplift in sentencing should the prejudice (hate) be present.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


" Hope you understand

Plus "religiously aggravated" is just a roundabout way of saying "blasphemy""

Perfectly!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"woke loving liberal elite

This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”

Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you.

I think you’ve missed my point.

There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people."

I've said nothing about your intelligence or suggested you're stupid, I said you missed my point.

Everyone is capable of misunderstanding dude.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"woke loving liberal elite"


"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"


"Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."


"I think you’ve missed my point."


"There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people."


"I've said nothing about your intelligence or suggested you're stupid, I said you missed my point.

Everyone is capable of misunderstanding dude."

Then perhaps you'd like to explain your point, so that we can all understand what you meant.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eviant-DesiresMan
7 weeks ago

Mid Cornwall

Always gonna be some overly fragile people getting butt hurt over some nonsense but it's the one's who actively seek it that gets me.

I think some people must literally wake up and think what can I find today to get involved in so I have something to complain about.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"woke loving liberal elite

This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”

Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you.

I think you’ve missed my point.

There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people.

I've said nothing about your intelligence or suggested you're stupid, I said you missed my point.

Everyone is capable of misunderstanding dude.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain your point, so that we can all understand what you meant."

Whats all this "we"?

Anyway, I as referring to people who deliberately cause offence to groups in order to bait trouble and then cry "freedom of speech" when someone inevitably calls them up for their ignorant discourse.

Before you say it, nothing in that statement is aimed at you personally.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"woke loving liberal elite"


"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"


"Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."


"I think you’ve missed my point."


"There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people."


"I've said nothing about your intelligence or suggested you're stupid, I said you missed my point."


"Then perhaps you'd like to explain your point, so that we can all understand what you meant."


"Whats all this "we"?"

Everyone reading this thread. It's not just you and me here.


"Anyway, I as referring to people who deliberately cause offence to groups in order to bait trouble and then cry "freedom of speech" when someone inevitably calls them up for their ignorant discourse."

You mean similar to what you're doing by saying that some people can’t cum unless they've offended someone? That's clearly a deliberate insult, and you're obviously using it to bait others in this thread. Why do you think your behaviour is acceptable?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"woke loving liberal elite

This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”

Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you.

I think you’ve missed my point.

There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people.

I've said nothing about your intelligence or suggested you're stupid, I said you missed my point.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain your point, so that we can all understand what you meant.

Whats all this "we"?

Everyone reading this thread. It's not just you and me here.

Anyway, I as referring to people who deliberately cause offence to groups in order to bait trouble and then cry "freedom of speech" when someone inevitably calls them up for their ignorant discourse.

You mean similar to what you're doing by saying that some people can’t cum unless they've offended someone? That's clearly a deliberate insult, and you're obviously using it to bait others in this thread. Why do you think your behaviour is acceptable?

"

Yeh that’s fair, it wasn’t aimed directly at you though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London

If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Yeh that’s fair, it wasn’t aimed directly at you though."

That's OK, I didn't think it was aimed at me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
7 weeks ago

West Suffolk


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies "

Pretty much anything can be considered offensive by someone.

I believe the important part of judging “alarm and/or distress” is for there to be an aggressive or threatening aspect to it.

For example… Is calling a fat person fat, distressing? Possibly, but there’s no threat or aggression so not illegal.

But there have been more and more cases where there is seemingly no threat and no aggression but the police have gotten involved. A nice simple win for them if a CRO is signed. A lot easier than catching actual criminals

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies

Pretty much anything can be considered offensive by someone.

I believe the important part of judging “alarm and/or distress” is for there to be an aggressive or threatening aspect to it.

For example… Is calling a fat person fat, distressing? Possibly, but there’s no threat or aggression so not illegal.

But there have been more and more cases where there is seemingly no threat and no aggression but the police have gotten involved. A nice simple win for them if a CRO is signed. A lot easier than catching actual criminals "

I think like with a lot of things, it’s the intent that matters. If you do something that incidentally offends someone, but causes no actual harm, then they’re just gonna have to deal with it.

It’s when people knowingly do things that are known to be offensive, for the sake of being offensive that it becomes a problem.

That’s not an absolute ideal but it’s a good start

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
7 weeks ago

Border of London


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies "

Everyone should be allowed to say "I believe in X", or "I don't believe in X". Nobody should be allowed to say "you're inferior because you believe in X, and should therefore be discriminated against".

Practically speaking, this means that one can (and should) be able to discuss, promote or blaspheme a religion. But you can't say "you're a druid, and all druids are dirty baby sodomisers, so you don't get a job". Between these extremes, there are some grey areas. Anyone should be allowed to go on YouTube and say "the Dharma/Koran/bible is crap" and burn a copy. But doing so outside a mosque is specifically offending people in that mosque. Not everyone would agree, but there's much more of a problem in targeting people than a philosophy, and that should be the first test of whether it should be acceptable. Not necessarily a final test, however.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies

Pretty much anything can be considered offensive by someone.

I believe the important part of judging “alarm and/or distress” is for there to be an aggressive or threatening aspect to it.

For example… Is calling a fat person fat, distressing? Possibly, but there’s no threat or aggression so not illegal.

But there have been more and more cases where there is seemingly no threat and no aggression but the police have gotten involved. A nice simple win for them if a CRO is signed. A lot easier than catching actual criminals

I think like with a lot of things, it’s the intent that matters. If you do something that incidentally offends someone, but causes no actual harm, then they’re just gonna have to deal with it.

It’s when people knowingly do things that are known to be offensive, for the sake of being offensive that it becomes a problem.

That’s not an absolute ideal but it’s a good start "

Is it ok to offend communists by intentionally wanting to offend them? Like telling bad stuff about Karl Marx?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies

Everyone should be allowed to say "I believe in X", or "I don't believe in X". Nobody should be allowed to say "you're inferior because you believe in X, and should therefore be discriminated against".

Practically speaking, this means that one can (and should) be able to discuss, promote or blaspheme a religion. But you can't say "you're a druid, and all druids are dirty baby sodomisers, so you don't get a job". Between these extremes, there are some grey areas. Anyone should be allowed to go on YouTube and say "the Dharma/Koran/bible is crap" and burn a copy. But doing so outside a mosque is specifically offending people in that mosque. Not everyone would agree, but there's much more of a problem in targeting people than a philosophy, and that should be the first test of whether it should be acceptable. Not necessarily a final test, however."

This came up in the other thread. I agree that individuals shouldn't be targeted. But I don't completely agree with the venue. If someone who has suffered oppression because of a religion goes to the front of a place of worship and protests by doing this, should they be arrested?

There were protests outside the church of Scientology with placards saying that "Scientology is an evil cult". Should they be arrested?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
7 weeks ago

Border of London


"... there's much more of a problem in targeting people than a philosophy, and that should be the first test of whether it should be acceptable. Not necessarily a final test, however.

This came up in the other thread. I agree that individuals shouldn't be targeted. But I don't completely agree with the venue. If someone who has suffered oppression because of a religion goes to the front of a place of worship and protests by doing this, should they be arrested?

There were protests outside the church of Scientology with placards saying that "Scientology is an evil cult". Should they be arrested?"

That's a very valid point (hence the words "not a final test") and this will remain a grey area.

One could argue that, in context, this is a protest against the movement since that person is coming from within it. This *intent* needs to be part of the judgement, now merely the actions. Much like use of the n* word by people to whom it refers. Context is important. Two Buddhists laughing at themselves in a friendly setting may tell a joke that would get a Christian fired if he made it in a workplace.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
7 weeks ago

Border of London

*and I agree that we need to err on the side of protecting free speech.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"If being offensive should be illegal, we would still be living in religious theocracies

Pretty much anything can be considered offensive by someone.

I believe the important part of judging “alarm and/or distress” is for there to be an aggressive or threatening aspect to it.

For example… Is calling a fat person fat, distressing? Possibly, but there’s no threat or aggression so not illegal.

But there have been more and more cases where there is seemingly no threat and no aggression but the police have gotten involved. A nice simple win for them if a CRO is signed. A lot easier than catching actual criminals

I think like with a lot of things, it’s the intent that matters. If you do something that incidentally offends someone, but causes no actual harm, then they’re just gonna have to deal with it.

It’s when people knowingly do things that are known to be offensive, for the sake of being offensive that it becomes a problem.

That’s not an absolute ideal but it’s a good start

Is it ok to offend communists by intentionally wanting to offend them? Like telling bad stuff about Karl Marx?"

Ok? I’d say probably not, why would you (the proverbial you) want to do that? Just for the sake of offending them?

Illegal? I’d also say no, but as others have said it’s a bit of a strange grey area. I take your point but I don’t think attacking someone’s politics is ever considered to be illegal. That would have all of Westminster in the dock*.

*This may not be such a bad thing

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"*and I agree that we need to err on the side of protecting free speech."

So do I. Sincerely, one of my favourite quotes on this matter is from Noam Chomsky:

“If you don’t believe in free speech for those you despise, you don’t believe in it at all”

We’re gonna end up circling back to verbal hate crimes though. It’s a bit of a conundrum to say the least.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
7 weeks ago

West Suffolk

If my neighbour came and knocked on my door and said “I believe your son is a bit thick”, offending me is clearly their intent, but should that require police involvement? It’s not threatening or aggressive so per the letter of the law, it shouldn’t.

But someone called the police because an individual called for her husband, who just happens to be a Labour councillor, to resign on social media and the police paid her a visit. There was no threat and no violence, not even the slightest hint that could be taken the wrong way. But the police dragged them off to the station in handcuffs.

The law should be cut and dry, not ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"If my neighbour came and knocked on my door and said “I believe your son is a bit thick”, offending me is clearly their intent, but should that require police involvement? It’s not threatening or aggressive so per the letter of the law, it shouldn’t.

But someone called the police because an individual called for her husband, who just happens to be a Labour councillor, to resign on social media and the police paid her a visit. There was no threat and no violence, not even the slightest hint that could be taken the wrong way. But the police dragged them off to the station in handcuffs.

The law should be cut and dry, not ambiguous and open to interpretation. "

That’s despicable, where was this? The right to openly disagree with politicians is a fundamental component of politics in the free world. You’re entering into a dictatorship if that becomes law.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"

The law should be cut and dry, not ambiguous and open to interpretation. "

That’s the whole legal industry out there window. I agree it would certainly help but the law is like a live document, new advances lead to new ways of breaking the law.

However, making the law more specific, even to the finest detail, is definitely a better effort than allowing cynics to wade in and manipulate its meaning.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"*and I agree that we need to err on the side of protecting free speech.

So do I. Sincerely, one of my favourite quotes on this matter is from Noam Chomsky:

“If you don’t believe in free speech for those you despise, you don’t believe in it at all”

We’re gonna end up circling back to verbal hate crimes though. It’s a bit of a conundrum to say the least. "

A hate crime has to have a crime attached to it, otherwise it's recorded as a hate incident.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"... there's much more of a problem in targeting people than a philosophy, and that should be the first test of whether it should be acceptable. Not necessarily a final test, however.

This came up in the other thread. I agree that individuals shouldn't be targeted. But I don't completely agree with the venue. If someone who has suffered oppression because of a religion goes to the front of a place of worship and protests by doing this, should they be arrested?

There were protests outside the church of Scientology with placards saying that "Scientology is an evil cult". Should they be arrested?

That's a very valid point (hence the words "not a final test") and this will remain a grey area.

One could argue that, in context, this is a protest against the movement since that person is coming from within it. This *intent* needs to be part of the judgement, now merely the actions. Much like use of the n* word by people to whom it refers. Context is important. Two Buddhists laughing at themselves in a friendly setting may tell a joke that would get a Christian fired if he made it in a workplace."

So an ex-muslim can burn the Quran and do exactly what the guy was charged for, last week and won't be charged? I don't think so. And if someone who never was part of Scientology had held that placard, they wouldn't be arrested either.

IMO people should have the right to criticise, insult, hate or mock ideologies. Religions aren't anything special. Intent shouldn't matter when it comes to these ideologies

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

This thread demonstrates the bumpy road comedians in this country need to navigate today.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool

I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please? "

Probably between 2010 and 2012. There were a lot of them globally then, look up Project Chanology.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please? "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

Probably between 2010 and 2012. There were a lot of them globally then, look up Project Chanology. "

Thanks, but someone was using a specific example, and I'd like to know more about that particular incident.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
7 weeks ago

Border of London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?"

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

"

That article was about the Scientologists requesting a PSPO, no mention of a protest.

Is there an article about a protest that had taken place.

Is there another article, maybe?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky."

One could say the same about other ideologies like capitalism and communism. It could turn out like the French revolution. Why is religion special compared to these other ideologies?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
7 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky.

One could say the same about other ideologies like capitalism and communism. It could turn out like the French revolution. Why is religion special compared to these other ideologies?"

Faith.

You can see the input, output of capitalism and communism. You need to have faith to believe in the input and output of religion, and people just don't like to have that faith questioned.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds

In most cases the freedom to practice and express your faith is a protected characteristic but in practice so is the freedom to express your political persuasion as well, although I don’t think politics is covered by the Equality Act.

That said, I agree. Religion and faith are wonderful things if they make you happy, fine. Believe what you like, by definition it’s not quantifiable or substantiated. To make them totally free from criticism by virtue of them being beliefs alone is incredibly risky, like someone else said you could, in theory, start whatever whacky religion you like and get protection from the consequences.

Hail Xenu the Galactic Overlord!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky.

One could say the same about other ideologies like capitalism and communism. It could turn out like the French revolution. Why is religion special compared to these other ideologies?

Faith.

You can see the input, output of capitalism and communism. You need to have faith to believe in the input and output of religion, and people just don't like to have that faith questioned. "

Pretty much every philosophy is based on some kind of faith. Science also relies on some axioms which is part of that belief system.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

That article was about the Scientologists requesting a PSPO, no mention of a protest.

Is there an article about a protest that had taken place.

Is there another article, maybe?

"

I couldn't find the article with actual protests, but I have seen it covered in some news channel once with the placard I said about and argued with someone about how the same placard would get them arrested if it was some other religion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago

[Removed by poster at 06/06/25 16:49:10]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago

Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

That article was about the Scientologists requesting a PSPO, no mention of a protest.

Is there an article about a protest that had taken place.

Is there another article, maybe?

I couldn't find the article with actual protests, but I have seen it covered in some news channel once with the placard I said about and argued with someone about how the same placard would get them arrested if it was some other religion. "

Actually I found one from an older protest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41697303

It has a protestor holding a sign about Scientology being a cult

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

"

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate. "

Most of them can, and will. Most employments contracts for large companies will cover bringing the company into disrepute in some way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate. "

If policies are clear, I think it’s an easy debate tbf - whether it’s morally right is another matter

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

If policies are clear, I think it’s an easy debate tbf - whether it’s morally right is another matter "

I mean…if you start spouting off about head measurements and the NF all over TikTok you can expect HR to have a word. Morally it’s all over the place but since when did morality matter to private enterprise?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
7 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky.

One could say the same about other ideologies like capitalism and communism. It could turn out like the French revolution. Why is religion special compared to these other ideologies?

Faith.

You can see the input, output of capitalism and communism. You need to have faith to believe in the input and output of religion, and people just don't like to have that faith questioned.

Pretty much every philosophy is based on some kind of faith. Science also relies on some axioms which is part of that belief system."

Science requires evidence that is tangible and repeatable.

Religion is blind faith that people pin their hopes on, they must do or they wouldn't believe in religion. Challenging their religion is attacking their blind faith, morals and basically their identity.

That shouldn't take religion off the table for scrutiny and critique, but the consequences of doing that can cause extreme reactions that we see far too often.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

That article was about the Scientologists requesting a PSPO, no mention of a protest.

Is there an article about a protest that had taken place.

Is there another article, maybe?

I couldn't find the article with actual protests, but I have seen it covered in some news channel once with the placard I said about and argued with someone about how the same placard would get them arrested if it was some other religion.

Actually I found one from an older protest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41697303

It has a protestor holding a sign about Scientology being a cult"

Ok. The article was about the opening of the Birmingham premises, and as an aside mentions that there were protesters in attendance and a photograph of a protester with a placard naming Scientology as a cult.

That would suggest a peaceful protest and freedom of speech.

The sign does not encourage anyone to act in a particular way. It's expressing an opinion.

Had there been any disorder, I'm sure that would have been in the report, along with how many arrests were made.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate. "

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene. "

Yes, and workplace laws usually go over and above government legislation.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

That article was about the Scientologists requesting a PSPO, no mention of a protest.

Is there an article about a protest that had taken place.

Is there another article, maybe?

I couldn't find the article with actual protests, but I have seen it covered in some news channel once with the placard I said about and argued with someone about how the same placard would get them arrested if it was some other religion.

Actually I found one from an older protest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41697303

It has a protestor holding a sign about Scientology being a cult

Ok. The article was about the opening of the Birmingham premises, and as an aside mentions that there were protesters in attendance and a photograph of a protester with a placard naming Scientology as a cult.

That would suggest a peaceful protest and freedom of speech.

The sign does not encourage anyone to act in a particular way. It's expressing an opinion.

Had there been any disorder, I'm sure that would have been in the report, along with how many arrests were made.

"

The guy who protected in front of the Turkish embassy also didn't ask anyone to act in anyway and he wasn't creating any disorder. It was a peaceful protest and should be covered by freedom of speech. It's those lunatics who attacked him that created disorder.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene.

Yes, and workplace laws usually go over and above government legislation."

Please explain.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"I'm curious as to which Scientology incident is being used as an example. Can someone supply a rough date and location, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo

This was the protest. But most people are pretty vocal about Scientology being a horrible cult and they would get away with saying it. I am totally onboard with people being able to say all they want about Scientology. My question is about why other religions have this special privilege? If I start a religion tomorrow that says women shouldn't be allowed outside, will that religion also receive protection against "hatred"?

Religions should never be protected.

People must be protected.

Sometimes, legitimate criticism of religions spills over into horrific consequences for innocent people. Unpicking whether an act directly causes this is tricky.

One could say the same about other ideologies like capitalism and communism. It could turn out like the French revolution. Why is religion special compared to these other ideologies?

Faith.

You can see the input, output of capitalism and communism. You need to have faith to believe in the input and output of religion, and people just don't like to have that faith questioned.

Pretty much every philosophy is based on some kind of faith. Science also relies on some axioms which is part of that belief system.

Science requires evidence that is tangible and repeatable.

Religion is blind faith that people pin their hopes on, they must do or they wouldn't believe in religion. Challenging their religion is attacking their blind faith, morals and basically their identity.

That shouldn't take religion off the table for scrutiny and critique, but the consequences of doing that can cause extreme reactions that we see far too often. "

From a philosophical perspective, the underpinnings of science aren't much better than that of a religion. But I agree that for most people, religion is just a matter of blind faith and it does evoke ab emotional reaction.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene.

Yes, and workplace laws usually go over and above government legislation.

Please explain. "

Workplaces can have dress codes and take against you if you don't follow them. There is much bigger scrutiny over the language you use in workplace, compared to outside of it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds

What surprises me is that philosophy has been around for longer than some of the mainstream religions and yet as a species we’ve overwhelmingly chosen to answer our existential crises with faith and not philosophy.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"What surprises me is that philosophy has been around for longer than some of the mainstream religions and yet as a species we’ve overwhelmingly chosen to answer our existential crises with faith and not philosophy. "

Because pretty much every philosophy out there leads you in circles and you inadvertently end up in a paradox. So instead of leading a nihilistic and confused life, picking a religion and following it makes life simpler.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds


"What surprises me is that philosophy has been around for longer than some of the mainstream religions and yet as a species we’ve overwhelmingly chosen to answer our existential crises with faith and not philosophy.

Because pretty much every philosophy out there leads you in circles and you inadvertently end up in a paradox. So instead of leading a nihilistic and confused life, picking a religion and following it makes life simpler."

Sure, but that’s where your own critical thinking is meant to come in isn’t it? Philosophy in a vacuum is just a series of thought experiments designed to challenge prevailing sentiment, like you said it rarely provides answers. Isn’t wisdom the acceptance that you mostly don’t have the answers?

We’ve got these big, remarkable and unique brains. Then again, simplicity, certainty and closure are much more comfortable than the alternatives so I guess that’s just our brains taking care of us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene.

Yes, and workplace laws usually go over and above government legislation.

Please explain.

Workplaces can have dress codes and take against you if you don't follow them. There is much bigger scrutiny over the language you use in workplace, compared to outside of it."

Like uniforms? To identify a member of staff?

Language, like talking to customers with respect and dignity?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Workplaces can have dress codes and take against you if you don't follow them. There is much bigger scrutiny over the language you use in workplace, compared to outside of it."


"Like uniforms? To identify a member of staff?

Language, like talking to customers with respect and dignity?"

My current workplace doesn't allow the wearing of shorts, or sandals. It's irritating, but they have the right to do that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"Workplaces can have dress codes and take against you if you don't follow them. There is much bigger scrutiny over the language you use in workplace, compared to outside of it.

Like uniforms? To identify a member of staff?

Language, like talking to customers with respect and dignity?

My current workplace doesn't allow the wearing of shorts, or sandals. It's irritating, but they have the right to do that."

I'd be interested to know the rationale.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"My current workplace doesn't allow the wearing of shorts, or sandals. It's irritating, but they have the right to do that."


"I'd be interested to know the rationale."

When I asked I was told that it was company policy. It doesn't matter that they are a services company and the workers never see the customer, the policy is in place and they intend to enforce it.

But to get back to the point. Workplace rules are often far more strict than legislation. Employers have that right if they want to use it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ayPrimeMan
7 weeks ago

Leeds

Sandals are a health and safety thing, exposed feet at greater risk of injury. Plus professionalism.

These are things I’ve been fed from corporate environments so I’m not sure how much truth there is in it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"My current workplace doesn't allow the wearing of shorts, or sandals. It's irritating, but they have the right to do that.

I'd be interested to know the rationale.

When I asked I was told that it was company policy. It doesn't matter that they are a services company and the workers never see the customer, the policy is in place and they intend to enforce it.

But to get back to the point. Workplace rules are often far more strict than legislation. Employers have that right if they want to use it."

If it's company policy, it's written down somewhere, with the rationale, surely?

And policies should be transparent and available to be read by staff.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Sandals are a health and safety thing, exposed feet at greater risk of injury. Plus professionalism.

These are things I’ve been fed from corporate environments so I’m not sure how much truth there is in it."

In our case there's no machinery involved, or health aspects to consider. It's just that the company director doesn't like it. You're right, the 'company policy' line is the one they use when they don't want to have any discussion about the rules.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"If it's company policy, it's written down somewhere, with the rationale, surely?

And policies should be transparent and available to be read by staff."

It is written down, there's an official company dress code. It's not just available to us, we're required to sign a form saying that we've read it and will comply.

But there is no rationale given. You obviously work in much friendlier places than I do.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"If it's company policy, it's written down somewhere, with the rationale, surely?

And policies should be transparent and available to be read by staff.

It is written down, there's an official company dress code. It's not just available to us, we're required to sign a form saying that we've read it and will comply.

But there is no rationale given. You obviously work in much friendlier places than I do."

I would hope that there's a way that this can be addressed, it sounds Draconian.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 weeks ago

Gilfach


"If it's company policy, it's written down somewhere, with the rationale, surely?

And policies should be transparent and available to be read by staff."


"It is written down, there's an official company dress code. It's not just available to us, we're required to sign a form saying that we've read it and will comply.

But there is no rationale given. You obviously work in much friendlier places than I do."


"I would hope that there's a way that this can be addressed, it sounds Draconian."

It's not Draconian, they don't make us wear chains while at our desks. It's just a minor rule about being vaguely smart.

The point here is that workplace rules can be, and are, more stringent than legislation. I apologise to the original poster for derailing the thread with a pointless tangent about shorts.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"Should someone lose their job or face disciplinary action for saying overtly offensive things? We’ll all have policies in the workplace that cover this. And they generally include social media too.

Workplace having rules is different from laws enforced outside the workplace. The topic of whether a workplace can fire people for their opinion on social media is a whole different debate.

Pretty sure work based rules have to follow legislation, too! Employment law, human rights, and also job specific like food hygiene.

Yes, and workplace laws usually go over and above government legislation.

Please explain.

Workplaces can have dress codes and take against you if you don't follow them. There is much bigger scrutiny over the language you use in workplace, compared to outside of it.

Like uniforms? To identify a member of staff?

Language, like talking to customers with respect and dignity?

"

Many finance companies expect you to wear formals while tech companies are cool with casuals. You can say things like "you are a fool" in day to day life, but not at most formal workplaces.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"What surprises me is that philosophy has been around for longer than some of the mainstream religions and yet as a species we’ve overwhelmingly chosen to answer our existential crises with faith and not philosophy.

Because pretty much every philosophy out there leads you in circles and you inadvertently end up in a paradox. So instead of leading a nihilistic and confused life, picking a religion and following it makes life simpler.

Sure, but that’s where your own critical thinking is meant to come in isn’t it? Philosophy in a vacuum is just a series of thought experiments designed to challenge prevailing sentiment, like you said it rarely provides answers. Isn’t wisdom the acceptance that you mostly don’t have the answers?

We’ve got these big, remarkable and unique brains. Then again, simplicity, certainty and closure are much more comfortable than the alternatives so I guess that’s just our brains taking care of us. "

Realising we don't have any answers is a problem in itself. If that's the case, why do we even care about morals? This is what led to big philosophical school of thoughts like nihilism, Existentialism and absurdism which

Doing your own critical thinking is fun for some but not for others. Many just want to enjoy happiness wherever they find. Following the path that religion sets for them simplified their search for happiness and there isn't anything wrong with it. I only have a problem when they try to enforce their rules on others.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ucka39Man
7 weeks ago

Newcastle

Yet discrimination is a violation of your rights to express your views and opinions

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"

The guy who protected in front of the Turkish embassy also didn't ask anyone to act in anyway and he wasn't creating any disorder. It was a peaceful protest and should be covered by freedom of speech. It's those lunatics who attacked him that created disorder."

Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in Derby and set fire to the Quran at around 14:00 GMT, the court heard.

The judge said Coskun's hatred of Islam had stemmed from his experiences in Turkey "and the experiences of your family".

He said: "It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.

"Your actions in burning the Quran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion."

Hardly the peaceful protest suggested.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"It's those lunatics who attacked him that created disorder."

One person. One person attacked him, was arrested and sentenced.

And why call the attacker a lunatic? Both individuals behaviour was extreme, surely? How is one a lunatic and not the other?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"It's those lunatics who attacked him that created disorder.

One person. One person attacked him, was arrested and sentenced.

And why call the attacker a lunatic? Both individuals behaviour was extreme, surely? How is one a lunatic and not the other? "

Two lunatics attacked him. The guy who used knife was arrested. There was a deliveroo driver who decided to stop by and kick him. He was not arrested.

Burning book is not extreme. But physically attacking someone over a book is lunacy.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

The guy who protected in front of the Turkish embassy also didn't ask anyone to act in anyway and he wasn't creating any disorder. It was a peaceful protest and should be covered by freedom of speech. It's those lunatics who attacked him that created disorder.

Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in Derby and set fire to the Quran at around 14:00 GMT, the court heard.

The judge said Coskun's hatred of Islam had stemmed from his experiences in Turkey "and the experiences of your family".

He said: "It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.

"Your actions in burning the Quran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion."

Hardly the peaceful protest suggested.

"

Which part of his protest was violent? The judge is being stupid here and justifying blasphemy indirectly.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago


"

Burning book is not extreme."

Subjective.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective. "

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason."

No, you invented a lot of shit and didn’t answer anything. As you’ve just done yet again.

Now once again, the act of book burning being ‘extreme’ is subjective, is it not?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason."

Erm, you have the transcript from the judge in this thread. If the police had no basis for the arrest, and there was no basis for this to go to the CPS, he would not have been charged and convicted.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason.

No, you invented a lot of shit and didn’t answer anything. As you’ve just done yet again.

Now once again, the act of book burning being ‘extreme’ is subjective, is it not?"

I gave valid counter examples and you couldn't refute a single one. If you were able to, you wouldn't have landed on "censorship" as your argument

And no. Book burning being extremist isn't subjective. Someone hates something and burns their own book to demonstrate it. It's not extremist. Attacking people is extremism. Attacking other people's or public property is extremism. Burning one's own book isn't.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason.

Erm, you have the transcript from the judge in this thread. If the police had no basis for the arrest, and there was no basis for this to go to the CPS, he would not have been charged and convicted."

The whole debate is about whether the police and the judge did the right thing. Neither of them are God. If we were to blindly accept what they did, there is no point in doing this debate

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago


"

And no. Book burning being extremist isn't subjective. Someone hates something and burns their own book to demonstrate it. It's not extremist. Attacking people is extremism. Attacking other people's or public property is extremism. Burning one's own book isn't."

If you pop along to Google and type in ‘is book burning extreme’ you’ll find a list of answers that counter you.

Which means….drum roll….that it is subjective (you do understand what subjective means, I presume?)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason.

Erm, you have the transcript from the judge in this thread. If the police had no basis for the arrest, and there was no basis for this to go to the CPS, he would not have been charged and convicted.

The whole debate is about whether the police and the judge did the right thing. Neither of them are God. If we were to blindly accept what they did, there is no point in doing this debate "

How about legislation?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

And no. Book burning being extremist isn't subjective. Someone hates something and burns their own book to demonstrate it. It's not extremist. Attacking people is extremism. Attacking other people's or public property is extremism. Burning one's own book isn't.

If you pop along to Google and type in ‘is book burning extreme’ you’ll find a list of answers that counter you.

Which means….drum roll….that it is subjective (you do understand what subjective means, I presume?)

"

Wow!! You have cooked up a new reason. People on the internet say different things, so it must be subjective.

If you search Google hard enough, you will have people supporting genocide and pedophilia. Will you take that as a valid argument?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Flat CapsCouple
7 weeks ago

Pontypool


"

And no. Book burning being extremist isn't subjective. Someone hates something and burns their own book to demonstrate it. It's not extremist. Attacking people is extremism. Attacking other people's or public property is extremism. Burning one's own book isn't.

If you pop along to Google and type in ‘is book burning extreme’ you’ll find a list of answers that counter you.

Which means….drum roll….that it is subjective (you do understand what subjective means, I presume?)

Wow!! You have cooked up a new reason. People on the internet say different things, so it must be subjective.

If you search Google hard enough, you will have people supporting genocide and pedophilia. Will you take that as a valid argument?"

Again. Legislation.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
7 weeks ago


"

And no. Book burning being extremist isn't subjective. Someone hates something and burns their own book to demonstrate it. It's not extremist. Attacking people is extremism. Attacking other people's or public property is extremism. Burning one's own book isn't.

If you pop along to Google and type in ‘is book burning extreme’ you’ll find a list of answers that counter you.

Which means….drum roll….that it is subjective (you do understand what subjective means, I presume?)

Wow!! You have cooked up a new reason. People on the internet say different things, so it must be subjective.

If you search Google hard enough, you will have people supporting genocide and pedophilia. Will you take that as a valid argument?"

What’s the definition of subjective?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 weeks ago

London


"

Burning book is not extreme.

Subjective.

Pretty sure we had a very long debate about it. You jumped from goal post after goal post, investing new reason every time your previous reason was debunked with a counter example, and at last landed in a ridiculous censorship argument over one guy burning one book

That debate was a clear demonstration of how most of you made up your mind that the guy had to be arrested without any reasoning behind it and when asked for a reason, you were trying hard to cook up a reason.

Erm, you have the transcript from the judge in this thread. If the police had no basis for the arrest, and there was no basis for this to go to the CPS, he would not have been charged and convicted.

The whole debate is about whether the police and the judge did the right thing. Neither of them are God. If we were to blindly accept what they did, there is no point in doing this debate

How about legislation? "

The legislation around this vague and leaves too much to interpretation. Something as fundamental as right to expression shouldn't be covered by vague laws. The 2003 Communications act, 1986 public order act amended by 2006 religious hatred act, all were written deliberately vague by authoritarian politicians to control people's speech.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top