Gareth Thomas Documentary – Alfie v Homophobia – T - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Gareth Thomas Documentary – Alfie v Homophobia – T

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 40 of 42 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 7.50pm
Originally posted by legaleagle The President of Uganda has described gays as "disgusting". Robert Mugabe has spoken of gays as: "... no to homosexuality. John and John, no; Maria and Maria, no. They are worse than dogs and pigs. I keep pigs and the male pig knows the female one.” Plainly neither an "incitement to violence" Hard to argue either do not help legitimise and stir up violence against gays in those countries. Same in history.Multiple speeches by Hitler early on using "words are violence" about jews but not any specific "incitement to violence" Those are very extreme examples.But IMHO,its as plain as night follows day that there can be a very meaningful link between "words are violence" and "incitement to violence".Hard to see how it can't be appropriate to try to nip racist or homophobic or similar "words are violence" in the bud. Edited by legaleagle (10 Aug 2017 11.28pm) If your argument is to say that a person can't say that they don't like a group then I massively disagree with you. What Hitler said about Jews did incite..because there were attacks in the early thirties .....today we could do something about it. I'm not aware what he said about Jews in public speeches. However, unlike today there were no voices to criticise back. The laws he passed meant something. The orders given to the brown shirts meant something. You get nutty feminists talking all kinds of sh1t about men all the time....'All men are rapists' for example. They aren't being arrested and frankly I don't support those nuts being arrested either. The idiots talking about killing Trump, should they be in jail? Isn't that incitement to violence? In America they know the difference between a nut talking sh1t and a real threat. I dispute the idea that some nut saying gays are this or gays or that is 'stirring up violence' anymore than saying 'all men are rapists' is stirring up violence against men. Words are not violence. Words are intent. If someone says something that can be argued and proved to be an 'incitement to violence' against a group or individual then if its reasonable then I'm fully in support of it. However, your interpretation is something I would happy fight against. You views are the step into what Orwell warned against. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.03pm) '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

11 Aug 17 7.50pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

The President of Uganda has described gays as "disgusting".

Robert Mugabe has spoken of gays as: "... no to homosexuality. John and John, no; Maria and Maria, no. They are worse than dogs and pigs. I keep pigs and the male pig knows the female one.”

Plainly neither an "incitement to violence"

Hard to argue either do not help legitimise and stir up violence against gays in those countries.

Same in history.Multiple speeches by Hitler early on using "words are violence" about jews but not any specific "incitement to violence"

Those are very extreme examples.But IMHO,its as plain as night follows day that there can be a very meaningful link between "words are violence" and "incitement to violence".Hard to see how it can't be appropriate to try to nip racist or homophobic or similar "words are violence" in the bud.

Edited by legaleagle (10 Aug 2017 11.28pm)

If your argument is to say that a person can't say that they don't like a group then I massively disagree with you.

What Hitler said about Jews did incite..because there were attacks in the early thirties .....today we could do something about it. I'm not aware what he said about Jews in public speeches. However, unlike today there were no voices to criticise back. The laws he passed meant something. The orders given to the brown shirts meant something.

You get nutty feminists talking all kinds of sh1t about men all the time....'All men are rapists' for example. They aren't being arrested and frankly I don't support those nuts being arrested either. The idiots talking about killing Trump, should they be in jail? Isn't that incitement to violence? In America they know the difference between a nut talking sh1t and a real threat.

I dispute the idea that some nut saying gays are this or gays or that is 'stirring up violence' anymore than saying 'all men are rapists' is stirring up violence against men.

Words are not violence. Words are intent.

If someone says something that can be argued and proved to be an 'incitement to violence' against a group or individual then if its reasonable then I'm fully in support of it.

However, your interpretation is something I would happy fight against. You views are the step into what Orwell warned against.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.03pm)

'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 11 Aug 17 8.00pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Using words to threaten to kill someone and meaning it 100% is non-physical but still violence. Why do you think Johnny Adair got the hell out of Belfast? Words are intent Kermit. They are not violence....they can threaten the physical or incite it against you. If you threaten physical harm to someone the law has means to protect you...or means to for a very very long time. However, the Police frequently won't do anything....because 'intent'. If the law believed, 'words are violence' we would need many many more prisons than we need already because they would be full every weekend. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.00pm) '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

11 Aug 17 8.00pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Using words to threaten to kill someone and meaning it 100% is non-physical but still violence.

Why do you think Johnny Adair got the hell out of Belfast?

Words are intent Kermit. They are not violence....they can threaten the physical or incite it against you.

If you threaten physical harm to someone the law has means to protect you...or means to for a very very long time.

However, the Police frequently won't do anything....because 'intent'.

If the law believed, 'words are violence' we would need many many more prisons than we need already because they would be full every weekend.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.00pm)

'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

Kermit8 Hevon 11 Aug 17 8.12pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Words are intent Kermit. They are not violence....they can threaten the physical or incite it against you. If you threaten physical harm to someone the law has means to protect you...or means to for a very very long time. However, the Police frequently won't do anything....because 'intent'. If the law believed, 'words are violence' we would need many many more prisons than we need already because they would be full every weekend. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.00pm) As I said earlier 'words' can make someone sh1t themselves and make them fraught with severe fear for days, weeks and months after. If that is not violence through words what the hell is it? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 11 Aug 17 8.12pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Words are intent Kermit. They are not violence....they can threaten the physical or incite it against you.

If you threaten physical harm to someone the law has means to protect you...or means to for a very very long time.

However, the Police frequently won't do anything....because 'intent'.

If the law believed, 'words are violence' we would need many many more prisons than we need already because they would be full every weekend.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 8.00pm)

As I said earlier 'words' can make someone sh1t themselves and make them fraught with severe fear for days, weeks and months after. If that is not violence through words what the hell is it?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 8.25pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 As I said earlier 'words' can make someone sh1t themselves and make them fraught with severe fear for days, weeks and months after. If that is not violence through words what the hell is it? Depends upon the actual situation. The way someone reacts to words doesn't mean that the person who issued them is responsible for how they react. It depends upon the situation....that's why we have actual laws about it....It's like you are deaf to this. What you are pushing is like saying that the person who cries is abused....because what you said made them cry. Yet this leaves out the reality of whether that crying was a reasonable reaction. It leaves out the reality that offence isn't violence.....Someone upsetting you is not violence. If someone threatens violence to someone or incites it, then if the services view it as serious then they might act on it. The law understand this....You apparently do not. '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

11 Aug 17 8.25pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

As I said earlier 'words' can make someone sh1t themselves and make them fraught with severe fear for days, weeks and months after. If that is not violence through words what the hell is it?

Depends upon the actual situation.

The way someone reacts to words doesn't mean that the person who issued them is responsible for how they react. It depends upon the situation....that's why we have actual laws about it....It's like you are deaf to this.

What you are pushing is like saying that the person who cries is abused....because what you said made them cry. Yet this leaves out the reality of whether that crying was a reasonable reaction. It leaves out the reality that offence isn't violence.....Someone upsetting you is not violence.

If someone threatens violence to someone or incites it, then if the services view it as serious then they might act on it.

The law understand this....You apparently do not.

'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

Kermit8 Hevon 11 Aug 17 8.42pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Depends upon the actual situation. The way someone reacts to words doesn't mean that the person who issued them is responsible for how they react. It depends upon the situation....that's why we have actual laws about it....It's like you are deaf to this. What you are pushing is like saying that the person who cries is abused....because what you said made them cry. Yet this leaves out the reality of whether that crying was a reasonable reaction. It leaves out the reality that offence isn't violence.....Someone upsetting you is not violence. If someone threatens violence to someone or incites it, then if the services view it as serious then they might act on it. The law understand this....You apparently do not. And what if the crying (and sh1tting themselves) was a totally reasonable reaction? Some rapists like a good natter telling their victims what they are about to go through. How would you categorise their pre-rape words if they they can't come under the banner of violence in Stirlingworld as it's more than intimidation. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 11 Aug 17 8.42pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Depends upon the actual situation.

What you are pushing is like saying that the person who cries is abused....because what you said made them cry. Yet this leaves out the reality of whether that crying was a reasonable reaction. It leaves out the reality that offence isn't violence.....Someone upsetting you is not violence.

If someone threatens violence to someone or incites it, then if the services view it as serious then they might act on it.

The law understand this....You apparently do not.

And what if the crying (and sh1tting themselves) was a totally reasonable reaction? Some rapists like a good natter telling their victims what they are about to go through. How would you categorise their pre-rape words if they they can't come under the banner of violence in Stirlingworld as it's more than intimidation.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 8.52pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 And what if the crying (and sh1tting themselves) was a totally reasonable reaction? Some rapists like a good natter telling their victims what they are about to go through. How would you categorise their pre-rape words if they they can't come under the banner of violence in Stirlingworld as it's more than intimidation. If it qualifies for 'incitement' then like I've said....the law can get involved....This is what the law actually is Kermit. Show me where in the law, it says 'words are violence'. It isn't there......Intent....incitement....god sake how many fcuking times. If it qualifies for 'incitement' then the law gets involved. However, there involvement is rarely anything like as serious as if violence actually took place...they have to make a judgement to that actual intent. Say the word slowly to yourself Kermit...come on....exercise that one brain cell....i n t e n t.....slowly now...you can do it. The only 's*ting' going on is me reading your posts and s*ting myself laughing.....But this will be my last word on this with you....I'm frigging bored repeating myself. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.02pm) '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

11 Aug 17 8.52pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

If it qualifies for 'incitement' then like I've said....the law can get involved....This is what the law actually is Kermit.

Show me where in the law, it says 'words are violence'. It isn't there......Intent....incitement....god sake how many fcuking times.

If it qualifies for 'incitement' then the law gets involved. However, there involvement is rarely anything like as serious as if violence actually took place...they have to make a judgement to that actual intent.

Say the word slowly to yourself Kermit...come on....exercise that one brain cell....i n t e n t.....slowly now...you can do it.

The only 's***ting' going on is me reading your posts and s***ting myself laughing.....But this will be my last word on this with you....I'm frigging bored repeating myself.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.02pm)

'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

kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 9.08pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays If it qualifies for 'incitement' then like I've said....the law can get involved....This is what the law actually is Kermit. Show me where in the law, it says 'words are violence'. It isn't there......Intent....incitement....god sake how many fcuking times. If it qualifies for 'incitement' then the law gets involved. However, there involvement is rarely anything like as serious as if violence actually took place...they have to make a judgement to that actual intent. Say the word slowly to yourself Kermit...come on....exercise that one brain cell....i n t e n t.....slowly now...you can do it. The only 's*ting' going on is me reading your posts and s*ting myself laughing.....But this will be my last word on this with you....I'm frigging bored repeating myself. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.02pm) While this isn't my area of the law,I don't think your right actually. For s.5 Public Order Act offences intent isn't a factor.it is the effect on the recipient and whether that person is "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" by the language used. Its objective, not subjective. Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978
Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee

born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 9.08pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

If it qualifies for 'incitement' then like I've said....the law can get involved....This is what the law actually is Kermit.

Show me where in the law, it says 'words are violence'. It isn't there......Intent....incitement....god sake how many fcuking times.

Say the word slowly to yourself Kermit...come on....exercise that one brain cell....i n t e n t.....slowly now...you can do it.

The only 's***ting' going on is me reading your posts and s***ting myself laughing.....But this will be my last word on this with you....I'm frigging bored repeating myself.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.02pm)

While this isn't my area of the law,I don't think your right actually. For s.5 Public Order Act offences intent isn't a factor.it is the effect on the recipient
and whether that person is "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" by the language used. Its objective, not subjective.

Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 9.32pm
Originally posted by kevlee While this isn't my area of the law,I don't think your right actually. For s.5 Public Order Act offences intent isn't a factor.it is the effect on the recipient and whether that person is "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" by the language used. Its objective, not subjective. Explain to me how that is not subjective? What the intent is seems to be exactly the measure. If it is the 'effect on the recipient' and 'alarm or distress' then explain to me why people aren't arrested for making people cry. If what you are saying is true, then how is Katie Hopkins not in jail, Mr Lawyer? Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.35pm) '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

11 Aug 17 9.32pm

Originally posted by kevlee

Explain to me how that is not subjective?

What the intent is seems to be exactly the measure.

If it is the 'effect on the recipient' and 'alarm or distress' then explain to me why people aren't arrested for making people cry.

If what you are saying is true, then how is Katie Hopkins not in jail, Mr Lawyer?

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.35pm)

'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

kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 9.44pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Explain to me how that is not subjective? What the intent is seems to be exactly the measure. If it is the 'effect on the recipient' and 'alarm or distress' then explain to me why people aren't arrested for making people cry. If what you are saying is true, then how is Katie Hopkins not in jail, Mr Lawyer? Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.35pm) what I am saying about what the law is, is true. The decision to prosecute is one for the CPS, but the law is what it is. The decision to prosecute is a matter of judgement for the CPS and one they balance with resources, seriousness etc. I imagine that they have more important things to do than prosecute verbal abuse, but that doesn't mean its not against the law. you might find the attached interesting. And your post don't have to be so aggressive. [Link] Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978
Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee

born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 9.44pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Explain to me how that is not subjective?

What the intent is seems to be exactly the measure.

If it is the 'effect on the recipient' and 'alarm or distress' then explain to me why people aren't arrested for making people cry.

If what you are saying is true, then how is Katie Hopkins not in jail, Mr Lawyer?

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.35pm)

what I am saying about what the law is, is true. The decision to prosecute is one for the CPS, but the law is what it is. The decision to prosecute is a matter of judgement for the CPS and one they balance with resources, seriousness etc. I imagine that they have more important things to do than prosecute verbal abuse, but that doesn't mean its not against the law. you might find the attached interesting. And your post don't have to be so aggressive.
[Link]

Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 9.46pm
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act safeguards the right to free expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference. According to Liberty, there have been very few prosecutions under the offence Mr Lawyer cited. [Link] '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

11 Aug 17 9.46pm

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act safeguards the right to free expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.

According to Liberty, there have been very few prosecutions under the offence Mr Lawyer cited.

[Link]

'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

legaleagle 11 Aug 17 9.48pm
But,Mr nonlawyer,he is correct about what the law is.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

11 Aug 17 9.48pm

But,Mr nonlawyer,he is correct about what the law is.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Aug 17 9.49pm
Originally posted by kevlee what I am saying about what the law is, is true. The decision to prosecute is one for the CPS, but the law is what it is. The decision to prosecute is a matter of judgement for the CPS and one they balance with resources, seriousness etc. I imagine that they have more important things to do than prosecute verbal abuse, but that doesn't mean its not against the law. you might find the attached interesting. And your post don't have to be so aggressive. [Link] And guess what mate, intent will play its part in that decision.....that's common sense. You describe yourself as a lawyer yet you ignore what the human rights act has to say on these matters and instead cite a public order act. I do tend to be miffed if I feel someone is misleading as too the actual reality of a situation....so sorry about that....I'm sure being a 'lawyer' you can get over it. '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

11 Aug 17 9.49pm

Originally posted by kevlee

And guess what mate, intent will play its part in that decision.....that's common sense.

You describe yourself as a lawyer yet you ignore what the human rights act has to say on these matters and instead cite a public order act.

I do tend to be miffed if I feel someone is misleading as too the actual reality of a situation....so sorry about that....I'm sure being a 'lawyer' you can get over it.

'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

Page 40 of 42 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Gareth Thomas Documentary – Alfie v Homophobia – T

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors