This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
eagleman13 On The Road To Hell & Alicante 17 Oct 21 9.39am | |
---|---|
Interesting little snippet i found whilst watching Manure getting stuffed on MOTD. Involves our beloved & revered MET chief of plod
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 17 Oct 21 12.20pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I don't need you to explain anything thanks. Football grounds aren't magical zones where laws don't apply or need to be adhered to. If someone is acting in such a manner fobbing it off as doing what fans do is neither here nor there. Your view is based solely on the usual racial 'sides' obsession stuff. Nothing to do with applying the same standard or adhering to law. I was contrasting you practically sucking off police one minute for 'upholding the law' when its a vigil for a slayed woman (while saying it's 'shameful' for people to criticise them for doing so) then having a complete about turn when its in favour of a 'cause' you believe in. It is what it is and you're not doing a very good job of spinning it as anything else. Let's leave it at that and save ourselves any further wasted time. Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 12.33am) It isn't, and I'm tired of you telling me what I think, so I'm not going to bother responding in future. You know what you can do with your straw man.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 17 Oct 21 12.34pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by kuge
It’s very simple. Racist abuse is against the law in the UK. I would always want the police to enforce the law whenever it is possible. I do not, however, expect the police to be able to enforce the law every time it is broken. Sometimes they will make a judgement that making an arrest is not safe or likely to inflame the situation. They do not and should not ever suggest that it is something that in certain situations and should be ignored. I am not here to defend the police, I am here to defend the law. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out very clearly what is illegal. If the police require the use of force to make arrests they have those powers. They should use force discretionally and proportionally. Hrolf appears to be saying that he only wants some laws enforced and others to be ignored. The police, thankfully, do not as yet have the ability to make up laws to suit their or anyone else’s purposes. If the police were to arrest supporters for calling the referee a ‘w***er’, they would be rightly required to say under what legislation they were doing so. The key fact here is that racism is illegal, swearing is not. I'm doing nothing of the sort. The laws as they stood were perfectly adequate. It is another example of mass immigration affecting the fundamental nature of our society. It is all driven by money and political expediency.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 17 Oct 21 12.35pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by kuge
This is not about whether you agree with the law, it is whether the law should be enforced. What happens if the police start only enforcing the laws that they think are good and ignoring those they think are less good? This is not their job. If there are laws that require changing it is up to politicians to seek that change. Your point about homosexuality being illeagle is a strawman argument, there are now and there have been plenty of laws in past with which I disagree. If I broke any of these laws I would expect to be arrested. If I said, no, don't arrest me because I don’t think this particular law is important, well I think that’s not likely to work out well. I might say that my arrest is wrong because I am not guilty of the offence, but that would need to be argued in court. It is I believe legitimate to expose that the law is wrong through deliberately breaking it. There is a long history of such actions. It is not legitimate for the police or the courts to decide this. The Police do actually decide on which laws to enforce every day....because a law exists it isn't automatic that it will be enforced. Anyway, while we may disagree on the merits of particular laws I think we can agree upon the basic and rather obvious purpose of enforcement by the state. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 12.42pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 17 Oct 21 12.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The Police do actually decide on which laws to enforce every day....because a law exists it isn't automatic that it will be enforced. Anyway, while we may disagree on the merits of particular laws I think we can agree upon the basic and rather obvious purpose of enforcement by the state. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 12.42pm) Exactly ask anyone who has been burgled or had their car stolen. Ask the shopkeepers about shoplifters. Walk down some high streets and people are openly smoking cannabis. The police pick and choose which crimes they act on look at the number of illegal electric scooters, cyclists who break the law etc. etc. Edited by Badger11 (17 Oct 2021 12.52pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Maine Eagle USA 17 Oct 21 2.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Would you have advocated the same attitude when homosexuality was illegal then? It's spelt punctuation. I’ve got you going with the spell checks now. Are you actually equating a law against racist abuse with a law against homosexuality?
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 17 Oct 21 3.45pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I’ve got you going with the spell checks now. Are you actually equating a law against racist abuse with a law against homosexuality? What's worse, the n word at a black man or homophobic abuse at a gay man.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
georgenorman 17 Oct 21 4.32pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
What's worse, the n word at a black man or homophobic abuse at a gay man. Depends which side you are batting for.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 17 Oct 21 4.41pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I’ve got you going with the spell checks now. Are you actually equating a law against racist abuse with a law against homosexuality? The point is that they are and were both laws and the point was different people feel differently about them. What you consider a law against 'racist abuse' is in fact a law against the perception of racist abuse just as much as it is against actual abuse. There was never a requirement to make a law involving race when the abuse law was already on the books. I consider these bad laws, any 'protected characteristic' law regarding speech is a bad law. I have no problem with people pointing out spelling or grammatical mistakes, just as long as they are also fine with their own being highlighted. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 4.46pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 17 Oct 21 8.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Your sole contribution is different iterations of excusing racist abuse (towards blacks), undermining it, and attacking people for defending themselves against it. That is the unpinning, and in the example you excuse here, it's farcical considering your professed respect for police. The endless obsession with Sky Sports News take on race indicates you either need more of a social life or at minimum a new remote battery. Quote What is most ridiculous is that lived in a Britain where the race related antagonisms of the past had all but disappeared,
You don't know the first thing about how much racial abuse people were on the receiving end of, primarily because you are much more perturbed by negative reactions to racists than to racism (against non whites) itself. This as exemplified by your recent wistful sadness at phrases like "n!gger in the woodpile" being seen as offensive now due to the number of 'immigrants' here now 'controlling language and thought'. There is no criteria for you by which black people are 'allowed' to be offended by racism, therefore it's always the response it to that bothers you. Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 8.57pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 17 Oct 21 9.14pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I've already addressed the point in the first paragraph, if you disagree then fine, however my point isn't made in reply to this. As for your response towards my point to Kuge....sure I wouldn't disagree. However, Kuge seemed to be suggesting that the law be followed or it's too the judge with you. Well ok, it's an expected attitude towards a law that you agree with. I simply pointed out a past law that he would have likely felt differently towards. So I regard his tone as reductionist. However, If he had the same attitude towards previously persecuted homosexuals then I'd accept that he was consistent. However, I doubt it. In my view laws that involve 'protected characteristics' on speech are unacceptable and bad law and I've come across no argument so far to change that view. And ultimately that was all I said....that, in my view, Kube loves bad laws. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 4.57am) The day previous you said you support the snuffing out of any discussion of homosexuality in schools via the re-introduction of what you call 'highly sensible laws' like section 28. This certainly suggests that you're more than happy to support laws that prevent speech as long as they protect the ideas that you prefer. Ultimately these laws attacking speech gave a green light to bullying because there were few avenues for defending a gay child against it. As always in life noise at either extreme is amplified (here with activist types on one side not being happy unless a drag queen is barreling through the door, and on the other side holding a ludicrous view that relationships we can all see with our own eyes should legally not be allowed to be mentioned) and sensible, balanced compromises are drowned out. We don't need to 'blot out' difference. It reminds me of how horrendous schools used to be at helping special needs kids by not acknowledging them and just letting them suffer bullying and confusion. Everyone has something to offer and we should attribute both recognistion and dignity to people, not shut them out due to ignorance. With your wayward politics, both of these groups get what amounts to a predictable ignorant display from you, even when you acknowledge that others in your family have faced these challenges. Only when you are personally impacted by something, such as the aspsergers situation you've mentioned, do you suddenly acknowledge issues on a fair, human and practical level where you appreciate people for who they are rather than the usual bigoted, undignified farce you trot out.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 17 Oct 21 10.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
The day previous you said you support the snuffing out of any discussion of homosexuality in schools via the re-introduction of what you call 'highly sensible laws' like section 28. This certainly suggests that you're more than happy to support laws that prevent speech as long as they protect the ideas that you prefer. Ultimately these laws attacking speech gave a green light to bullying because there were few avenues for defending a gay child against it. Hang on.....The educational curriculum isn't a 'free speech' platform and never has been. It is about the state deciding what its young need to be taught to live productive lives. As a teacher I couldn't just teach my students whatever I liked, it needed to be knowledge from my subject area. It isn't a free for all where sociological ideas from teachers can just be spread around like speaker's corner. You are comparing oranges and apples. Originally posted by BlueJay
As always in life noise at either extreme is amplified (here with activist types on one side not being happy unless a drag queen is barreling through the door, and on the other side holding a ludicrous view that relationships we can all see with our own eyes should legally not be allowed to be mentioned) and sensible, balanced compromises are drowned out. We don't need to 'blot out' difference. It reminds me of how horrendous schools used to be at helping special needs kids by not acknowledging them and just letting them suffer bullying and confusion. Everyone has something to offer and we should attribute both recognistion and dignity to people, not shut them out due to ignorance. With your wayward politics, both of these groups get what amounts to a predictable ignorant display from you, even when you acknowledge that others in your family have faced these challenges. Only when you are personally impacted by something, such as the aspsergers situation you've mentioned, do you suddenly acknowledge issues on a fair, human and practical level where you appreciate people for who they are rather than the usual bigoted, undignified farce you trot out. For briefness I'm not going to address each point here, as some of them aren't even what I mean.... but I will say that in general I completely and utterly disagree with the idea that children need to be taught that all lifestyles are equal in worth as the statistics on outcomes for different lifestyles are there for all to read and weep over. Section 28 was a good law and in my view wider society is suffering from losing it. Unfetted egalitarianism not only lies to youth but frequently harms the most vulnerable by teaching them concepts that just aren't reality in the real world. Also when it comes to my personal life you don't know what you are talking about. Also it's a non sequitur that because I agree with section 28 that this would mean that I'd have to have a set opinion for other areas. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 11.24pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.