Politicians against free speech

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Politicians against free speech

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

.TUX. 22 Apr 18 7.17pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays We live in a representative democracy. It is what it is. We don't get to change the ship but we do get a tiny say on deciding who is steering it. I think you are far more centred in on the system, which is fair enough. What system would you prefer instead? A true democracy would be nice Being given a vote means diddly..........unless you're particularly dumb. Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

22 Apr 18 7.17pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

We live in a representative democracy. It is what it is. We don't get to change the ship but we do get a tiny say on deciding who is steering it. I think you are far more centred in on the system, which is fair enough. What system would you prefer instead?

A true democracy would be nice

Being given a vote means diddly..........unless you're particularly dumb.

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 23 Apr 18 9.07pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Parliament can and does, inflict serious damage upon sections of society as we are seeing. It also appears impossibly weak and irrelevant at the same time, the PM disregards it and the voting does it ultimately matter? Is it not a crumbling victorian edifice like the buildings themselves? And represent the same people? Will need to really think about this one...... I'd favour a military coup and the public execution of all of them, personally. 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 23 Apr 18 9.07pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Parliament can and does, inflict serious damage upon sections of society as we are seeing.

It also appears impossibly weak and irrelevant at the same time, the PM disregards it and the voting does it ultimately matter?

Is it not a crumbling victorian edifice like the buildings themselves? And represent the same people?

Will need to really think about this one......

I'd favour a military coup and the public execution of all of them, personally.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 Apr 18 9.11pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt I'd favour a military coup and the public execution of all of them, personally. That'll teach em over that pay rise! '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

Stirlingsays

23 Apr 18 9.11pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

I'd favour a military coup and the public execution of all of them, personally.

That'll teach em over that pay rise!

'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

PalazioVecchio south pole 01 May 23 1.39pm
Free Speech in Ireland......RiP will they start by rounding up all the book publishers ? especially any homophobic old Religious Texts ? i doubt it. but if some snowflake claims to be hurt by your opinions on, say, Zaha's goal at the weekend, woe betide you. in Orwell's 1984 ? to tell the truth is an act of rebellion. [Link] Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 May 2023 1.48pm) Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 01 May 23 1.39pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Free Speech in Ireland......RiP

will they start by rounding up all the book publishers ? especially any homophobic old Religious Texts ? i doubt it.

but if some snowflake claims to be hurt by your opinions on, say, Zaha's goal at the weekend, woe betide you.

in Orwell's 1984 ? to tell the truth is an act of rebellion.

[Link]

Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 May 2023 1.48pm)

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 01 May 23 2.34pm
Out of interest, how many other democracies have a had a no ID required policy around voting in elections? I mix in circles that include a lot of foreigns. Every one of them, when they have ended up voting in UK elections, have commented on the lack of ID being required prior to casting a vote so are we unique in this? I get why the Left hate it because it means they will suffer for a variety of reasons but are we merely coming into line with how the rest of the global democracies work or are we out on our own now with requiring ID? Edited by Matov (01 May 2023 2.45pm) "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

01 May 23 2.34pm

Out of interest, how many other democracies have a had a no ID required policy around voting in elections?

I mix in circles that include a lot of foreigns. Every one of them, when they have ended up voting in UK elections, have commented on the lack of ID being required prior to casting a vote so are we unique in this?

I get why the Left hate it because it means they will suffer for a variety of reasons but are we merely coming into line with how the rest of the global democracies work or are we out on our own now with requiring ID?

Edited by Matov (01 May 2023 2.45pm)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 01 May 23 2.56pm
Originally posted by Matov Out of interest, how many other democracies have a had a no ID required policy around voting elections? I mix in circles that include a lot of foreigns. Every one of them, when they have ended up voting in UK elections, have commented on the lack of ID being required prior to casting a vote so are we unique in this? I get why the Left hate it because it means they will suffer for a variety of reasons but are we merely coming into line with how the rest of the global democracies work or are we out on our own now with requiring ID? There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election. What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting. If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will. "The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident. "The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people. The conservatives are desperate.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 01 May 23 2.56pm

Originally posted by Matov

Out of interest, how many other democracies have a had a no ID required policy around voting elections?

There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election.

What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting.

If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will.

"The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident.

"The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people.

The conservatives are desperate.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 01 May 23 3.19pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election. What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting. If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will. "The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident. "The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people. The conservatives are desperate. So we have been unique in not requiring ID at voting stations? Interesting. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

01 May 23 3.19pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election.

What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting.

If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will.

"The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident.

"The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people.

The conservatives are desperate.

So we have been unique in not requiring ID at voting stations? Interesting.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 May 23 3.57pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election. What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting. If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will. "The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident. "The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people. The conservatives are desperate. The 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets – subsequently declared null and void – was famously described by a judge as an election that would have shamed a banana republic.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 May 23 3.57pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

There is zero voting fraud in the UK, I think 1 case only at the 2019 election.

What we are seeing now is the government trying to discourage young and minority groups they see as not voting conservative, from voting.

If you are 16-25 and have a photo railcard, you will not be able to vote, if you are 60+ and have an oyster card, you will.

"The new voter ID requirement will stop many young people from voting - and it seems that is by design, not by accident.

"The government has given older voters, who are more likely to vote Conservative, a large range of acceptable forms of ID, while providing very few options for young people.

The conservatives are desperate.

The 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets – subsequently declared null and void – was famously described by a judge as an election that would have shamed a banana republic.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 01 May 23 4.36pm
If you cannot prove your identity how did you end up on the electoral roll in the first place. There is a suspicion that Labour councils don't spend too much time checking that a person is real and eligible. This should be a first step more needs to be done espcially around postal voting. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 01 May 23 4.36pm

If you cannot prove your identity how did you end up on the electoral roll in the first place.

There is a suspicion that Labour councils don't spend too much time checking that a person is real and eligible.

This should be a first step more needs to be done espcially around postal voting.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 May 23 4.41pm
I have no issue with requiring voter ID at polling stations. So long as it is done fairly and doesn't disadvantage anyone. I also have no problem with everyone of voting age being issued an ID card which includes modern technology, if they don't hold a passport. I also don't have a problem restricting postal voting to those who really cannot get to a polling station and for them to have an application for a postal vote signed off by a doctor, social worker or someone else who is capable. We aren't the USA. Voting here is made easy for everyone. The original idea in this thread though is bonkers. No politician I am aware of is against free speech and is pressuring social media companies to remove opinions they don't like. What is happening is to ensure social media companies remove unlawful content. Things that threaten, harass or otherwise break the law. If you cannot do it on the street you ought not be doing it online. Posting controversial, or disagreeable, opinions is never a problem. They can be argued with. Causing harm cannot. Some think that "hurty" words don't matter, but they can and do. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 May 23 4.41pm

I have no issue with requiring voter ID at polling stations. So long as it is done fairly and doesn't disadvantage anyone. I also have no problem with everyone of voting age being issued an ID card which includes modern technology, if they don't hold a passport.

I also don't have a problem restricting postal voting to those who really cannot get to a polling station and for them to have an application for a postal vote signed off by a doctor, social worker or someone else who is capable. We aren't the USA. Voting here is made easy for everyone.

The original idea in this thread though is bonkers. No politician I am aware of is against free speech and is pressuring social media companies to remove opinions they don't like.

What is happening is to ensure social media companies remove unlawful content. Things that threaten, harass or otherwise break the law. If you cannot do it on the street you ought not be doing it online.

Posting controversial, or disagreeable, opinions is never a problem. They can be argued with. Causing harm cannot. Some think that "hurty" words don't matter, but they can and do.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 01 May 23 5.18pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Posting controversial, or disagreeable, opinions is never a problem. They can be argued with. Causing harm cannot. Some think that "hurty" words don't matter, but they can and do. i am comfortable with stopping people saying nasty generalisations about certain groups. but what about telling the truth ? saying 'group x did most of the child grooming' or 'most arrests for professional begging gangs were of y nationality' or 'country z (and its populations elsewhere) has a bad problem with Cousin-marriage' or 'the UK heroin trade is dominated by gangs with connections to country x' will Censorship be silencing the truth ? Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 May 2023 5.33pm) Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 01 May 23 5.18pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Posting controversial, or disagreeable, opinions is never a problem. They can be argued with. Causing harm cannot. Some think that "hurty" words don't matter, but they can and do.

i am comfortable with stopping people saying nasty generalisations about certain groups.

but what about telling the truth ?
saying 'group x did most of the child grooming' or 'most arrests for professional begging gangs were of y nationality' or 'country z (and its populations elsewhere) has a bad problem with Cousin-marriage' or 'the UK heroin trade is dominated by gangs with connections to country x'

will Censorship be silencing the truth ?

Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 May 2023 5.33pm)

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 01 May 23 6.59pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio Free Speech in Ireland......RiP will they start by rounding up all the book publishers ? especially any homophobic old Religious Texts ? i doubt it. but if some snowflake claims to be hurt by your opinions on, say, Zaha's goal at the weekend, woe betide you. in Orwell's 1984 ? to tell the truth is an act of rebellion. [Link] Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 May 2023 1.48pm) As Abbot has recently found out; it will also capture the makers of such stupid laws, or at least remakes of said laws.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst