Look what you've done!

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Look what you've done!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 15 of 28 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.21pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 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". 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. Who of? Trevor Brooking? Colin Moynihan? Sepp Blatter, its made of gold, at least according to the receipt.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 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".

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.

Who of? Trevor Brooking? Colin Moynihan?

Sepp Blatter, its made of gold, at least according to the receipt.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.23pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 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. Stalin Tick. Awaits mention of Pol Pot
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 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 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.

Stalin Tick. Awaits mention of Pol Pot

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.24pm
Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***. Speaks volumes I'm afraid.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.34pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c**. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. What about a scouse cnt? Or a Welsh cnt? Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

What about a scouse c*nt? Or a Welsh c*nt?

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.36pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c**. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. What about a scouse cnt? Or a Welsh c*nt? Societal acceptable semantics innit.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.36pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

What about a scouse c*nt? Or a Welsh c*nt?

Societal acceptable semantics innit.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.39pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c**. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. What about a scouse cnt? Or a Welsh cnt? Societal acceptable semantics innit. For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.39pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

What about a scouse c*nt? Or a Welsh c*nt?

Societal acceptable semantics innit.

For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 3.42pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c*. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. I don't think you should call anyone a ct. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Jul 15 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

I don't think you should call anyone a c**t. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.44pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.39pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c**. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. What about a scouse cnt? Or a Welsh c*nt? Societal acceptable semantics innit. For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though. But it wasn't arbitrary was it. We arrived at a point where it is socially unacceptable to use racially pejorative language - Ask Jake d'eagle - wasn't an overnight thing.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.44pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.39pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

What about a scouse c*nt? Or a Welsh c*nt?

Societal acceptable semantics innit.

For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though.

But it wasn't arbitrary was it. We arrived at a point where it is socially unacceptable to use racially pejorative language - Ask Jake d'eagle - wasn't an overnight thing.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.45pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c*. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. I don't think you should call anyone a ct. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too. I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.45pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c*. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. I don't think you should call anyone a ct. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too. I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms. You brought up the Terry issue in a thread about Tory policies. Why are you doing this? Either agree with it or not. You brought the word black into the conversation, waited for someone to counter your argument that it's OK for a high profile footballer to use racist language to accuse them of selective outrage. Poor trolling. Must try harder.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 3.50pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms.

You brought up the Terry issue in a thread about Tory policies. Why are you doing this? Either agree with it or not.
You brought the word black into the conversation, waited for someone to counter your argument that it's OK for a high profile footballer to use racist language to accuse them of selective outrage.

Poor trolling. Must try harder.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.44pm Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.39pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c**. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. What about a scouse cnt? Or a Welsh cnt? Societal acceptable semantics innit. For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though. But it wasn't arbitrary was it. We arrived at a point* where it is socially unacceptable to use racially pejorative language - Ask Jake d'eagle - wasn't an overnight thing. Now that's my point. Who is this 'we' of which you speak? I get a bit miffed when people make decisions kinda unilaterally. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 3.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.44pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.39pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.36pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

What about a scouse c*nt? Or a Welsh c*nt?

Societal acceptable semantics innit.

For some people, perhaps. It's still an absurd and irrational line to draw, though.

But it wasn't arbitrary was it. We arrived at a point where it is socially unacceptable to use racially pejorative language - Ask Jake d'eagle - wasn't an overnight thing.

Now that's my point. Who is this 'we' of which you speak? I get a bit miffed when people make decisions kinda unilaterally.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 3.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.50pm Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c*. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. I don't think you should call anyone a ct. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too. I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms. You brought up the Terry issue in a thread about Tory policies. Why are you doing this? Either agree with it or not. You brought the word black into the conversation, waited for someone to counter your argument that it's OK for a high profile footballer to use racist language to accuse them of selective outrage. Poor trolling. Must try harder. My contributions were in answer to your own posting of a link about 'thought crimes', contrasting the left's support of the right of Islamic State supporters to have freedom of speech, but the likes of Terry not to. Terry was found not guilty of using racist language by a proper court. The politically correct FA punished him for political reasons. Is it a 'societal norm' to allow Islamic State supporters to spread their poison unhindered? Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 4.00pm) mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Jul 15 3.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.50pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms.

Poor trolling. Must try harder.

My contributions were in answer to your own posting of a link about 'thought crimes', contrasting the left's support of the right of Islamic State supporters to have freedom of speech, but the likes of Terry not to. Terry was found not guilty of using racist language by a proper court. The politically correct FA punished him for political reasons. Is it a 'societal norm' to allow Islamic State supporters to spread their poison unhindered?

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 4.00pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 15 of 28 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Look what you've done!

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors