This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Look what you've done!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 22 Jul 15 1.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 1.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there. Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am) Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships. Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism. Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be. So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live. Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it. However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting. What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class. Political Correctness and Free Speech are liberal ideologies, not socialist ones. They are not left wing by any stretch of the imagination and as you'd like to point out, Socialist countries generally don't place a high value on free speech or freedom of expression. Infact, the ideals of Freedom of Speech really are a product of liberal capitalism, having preserved more through the US constitution back into Western Capitalism, than being a product of a left wing conspiracy. Euopean nations were very slow on the uptake of freedom of speech as a concept. In fact in UK law it was 'enshrined' until 1998 under the human rights act.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you".
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 1.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.43pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 12.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 11.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.49am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 12.30am
thought crime illegal soon...
Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there. Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am) Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships. Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism. Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be. So it is ok to voice support for an organisation that beheads people, burns people alive, rapes children and throws gay men off roofs. But it is punishable to use the word 'black' in certain contexts and to tell people to 'go home' and to refuse to support same sex marriage even when it is illegal where you live. Yes, that's how free speech works. Provided those are personal opinion, and not directed at specific people. There is a world of difference between saying something, and acting upon it. However, if your speaking for a business or directly expressing that opinion at someone else, such as telling them to go home, you're no longer just speaking, you're enacting. What a peculiar idea you have of what is free speech. Athough I accept that these days it means the right to express views that the left approves of, or is afraid to criticise in case of offending some minority or other. Whereas anything that the left disapproves of can suffer the full force of the law. The new left damages the very 'freedoms' that is supposedly supports. Very similar to the fact that implementation of their economic 'policies' would actually impoverish the very people they supposedly support - the working class. Political Correctness and Free Speech are liberal ideologies, not socialist ones. They are not left wing by any stretch of the imagination and as you'd like to point out, Socialist countries generally don't place a high value on free speech or freedom of expression. Infact, the ideals of Freedom of Speech really are a product of liberal capitalism, having preserved more through the US constitution back into Western Capitalism, than being a product of a left wing conspiracy. Euopean nations were very slow on the uptake of freedom of speech as a concept. In fact in UK law it was 'enshrined' until 1998 under the human rights act. I agree with all this - what are we arguing about?!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you". The FA has its own statue of laws and requirements, which include a ban on racism. He works within their auspices and takes a sizable wage from playing under contract within those rules, to which he agreed. Most people in employment have contractual restrictions on free speech. Its not just limited to race either. It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 2.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you". The FA has its own statue of laws and requirements, which include a ban on racism. He works within their auspices and takes a sizable wage from playing under contract within those rules, to which he agreed. Most people in employment have contractual restrictions on free speech. Its not just limited to race either. It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Was the 'supporter' a member of the (arguably racist) Black Police Association?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you".
It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Who of? Trevor Brooking? Colin Moynihan?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you". The FA has its own statue of laws and requirements, which include a ban on racism. He works within their auspices and takes a sizable wage from playing under contract within those rules, to which he agreed. Most people in employment have contractual restrictions on free speech. Its not just limited to race either. It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Yet a proper court found Terry not guilty of racially aggravated offences. The FA, in its wisdom knew better and were determined to punish him for politically correct reasons, regardless of anything. The outcome is that the England team lost one of its most effective players.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 2.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 2.54pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you". The FA has its own statue of laws and requirements, which include a ban on racism. He works within their auspices and takes a sizable wage from playing under contract within those rules, to which he agreed. Most people in employment have contractual restrictions on free speech. Its not just limited to race either. It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Yet a proper court found Terry not guilty of racially aggravated offences. The FA, in its wisdom knew better and were determined to punish him for politically correct reasons, regardless of anything. The outcome is that the England team lost one of its most effective players. Different levels of evidence. A criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil and tribunal cases usually are on balance of evidence. Its got nothing to do with knowing better.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 2.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 2.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you".
It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Who of? Trevor Brooking? Colin Moynihan? Sepp Blatter, its made of gold, at least according to the receipt.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 3.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.59pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 2.54pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 2.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 1.36pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 1.17pm
The suppression of politically correct free speech results in the likes of the arrest, handcuffing and prosecution of an 85-year-old working class woman. Also the victimisation of the likes of John Terry and Carol Thatcher. Free speech doesn't include breaking the law, in the case of the first two, specifically racially harassing someone. In both cases, the use of language was determined to be used as a form of assault or denigration Not sure about the Carol Thatcher, but if I remember rightly she expressed her free speech, but wasn't prosecuted or pursued by the state for what she said. Arguably, the right to free speech does not preclude the right to others use of their free speech as a means of redress, or others taking legal actions to protect their own image etc. No one is freed from consequence by free speech, they are only protected from the state, as free speech is defined in law. Those who think it means you can say anything, in any manner, to anyone, without redress are very stupid people. Terry was found not guilty in court, it was the FA kangeroo court that decided to punish his freedom of speech. I guess he would have been ok if he had said to Ferdinand "ISIS knows how to deal with indfidels like you". The FA has its own statue of laws and requirements, which include a ban on racism. He works within their auspices and takes a sizable wage from playing under contract within those rules, to which he agreed. Most people in employment have contractual restrictions on free speech. Its not just limited to race either. It was a stupid farce, because the complainant wasn't Anton Ferdinand, but a TV supporter, who was also a police man. Yet a proper court found Terry not guilty of racially aggravated offences. The FA, in its wisdom knew better and were determined to punish him for politically correct reasons, regardless of anything. The outcome is that the England team lost one of its most effective players. Different levels of evidence. A criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil and tribunal cases usually are on balance of evidence. Its got nothing to do with knowing better. So the FA convicts people when there is reasonable doubt. That could explain why their conviction rate is higher than Stalin's courts.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jul 15 3.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Its not a conviction, its the finding of the FA disciplinary commission (or similar). Criminal law has an entirely different set of criteria, requirements and outcomes than the FA rules and regulations. Its quite common for people to be found not guilty in a criminal court, and still be sued successfully in civil court. The FA rules fall under civil law, not criminal law.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.