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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Feb 24 7.38pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Different rules apply. [Link] That’s not different rules at all. That’s just different judges deciding how to interpret the “rules”, aka laws. They can vary a lot and some produce mind blowing judgements. As experienced in this story, and by me last week. 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 15 Feb 24 7.38pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Different rules apply.

[Link]

That’s not different rules at all.

That’s just different judges deciding how to interpret the “rules”, aka laws.

They can vary a lot and some produce mind blowing judgements. As experienced in this story, and by me last week.

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 15 Feb 24 7.43pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare It has to be but it isn't. The ridiculousness of it all is astounding. Even for Irish politicians. Then again they do as directed by the EU. It is not defined anything someone says that another person does not like can be hate speech. I am still waiting to read the actual text. Only then will we know if these are genuine concerns or only imaginary ones being spread by conspiracy theorists. I know which possibility my money is on. 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 15 Feb 24 7.43pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

It has to be but it isn't. The ridiculousness of it all is astounding. Even for Irish politicians. Then again they do as directed by the EU.
It is not defined anything someone says that another person does not like can be hate speech.

I am still waiting to read the actual text. Only then will we know if these are genuine concerns or only imaginary ones being spread by conspiracy theorists.

I know which possibility my money is on.

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

Teddy Eagle 15 Feb 24 8.33pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That’s not different rules at all. That’s just different judges deciding how to interpret the “rules”, aka laws. They can vary a lot and some produce mind blowing judgements. As experienced in this story, and by me last week. OK, let's call it the way rules are differently applied.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

15 Feb 24 8.33pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That’s not different rules at all.

That’s just different judges deciding how to interpret the “rules”, aka laws.

They can vary a lot and some produce mind blowing judgements. As experienced in this story, and by me last week.

OK, let's call it the way rules are differently applied.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 15 Feb 24 8.53pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am still waiting to read the actual text. Only then will we know if these are genuine concerns or only imaginary ones being spread by conspiracy theorists. I know which possibility my money is on. conspiracy theory . Yeah sure. [Link] . [Link] Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 15 Feb 24 8.53pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am still waiting to read the actual text. Only then will we know if these are genuine concerns or only imaginary ones being spread by conspiracy theorists.

I know which possibility my money is on.

conspiracy theory . Yeah sure.

[Link]
.
[Link]

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Feb 24 10.45pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio conspiracy theory . Yeah sure. [Link] . [Link] They are just more interpretations of the bill. We know people think it is restrictive and don’t need anymore examples of those opinions. What I asked for is the actual text of the bill, together with how it is intended to be applied. We can then form our own opinion uninfluenced by anyone else. As no one else found it, I did. The summary on the first link contains the intentions, which I don’t think anyone can disagree with. The detail is the second which I am sure will provide many hours of nitpicking by lawyers and lawmakers:- [Link] [Link] Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Feb 2024 10.56pm) 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 15 Feb 24 10.45pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

conspiracy theory . Yeah sure.

[Link]
.
[Link]

They are just more interpretations of the bill. We know people think it is restrictive and don’t need anymore examples of those opinions.

What I asked for is the actual text of the bill, together with how it is intended to be applied. We can then form our own opinion uninfluenced by anyone else.

As no one else found it, I did. The summary on the first link contains the intentions, which I don’t think anyone can disagree with. The detail is the second which I am sure will provide many hours of nitpicking by lawyers and lawmakers:-

[Link]

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Feb 2024 10.56pm)

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 15 Feb 24 10.59pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle OK, let's call it the way rules are differently applied. They are and always will be in any circumstance when a judge is required to decide probabilities. They are human and will disagree with each other, and with us. 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 15 Feb 24 10.59pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

OK, let's call it the way rules are differently applied.

They are and always will be in any circumstance when a judge is required to decide probabilities. They are human and will disagree with each other, and with us.

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

cryrst The garden of England 16 Feb 24 7.46am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle My wife was getting a bit paranoid about her phone listening to her. Saves me the job. The difference is the phone might give a s***
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Feb 24 7.46am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

My wife was getting a bit paranoid about her phone listening to her. Saves me the job.

The difference is the phone might give a s***

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Feb 24 7.48am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle They are and always will be in any circumstance when a judge is required to decide probabilities. They are human and will disagree with each other, and with us. Which is good yeah; … unless it’s a fraudulent claim !
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Feb 24 7.48am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

They are and always will be in any circumstance when a judge is required to decide probabilities. They are human and will disagree with each other, and with us.

Which is good yeah; … unless it’s a fraudulent claim !

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 16 Feb 24 8.42am
Originally posted by cryrst The difference is the phone might give a s*** So it should. It gets more attention, fewer accusations of not paying attention when the football is on and it doesn't get reminded of things it did/didn't do 30 years ago.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

16 Feb 24 8.42am

Originally posted by cryrst

The difference is the phone might give a s***

So it should. It gets more attention, fewer accusations of not paying attention when the football is on and it doesn't get reminded of things it did/didn't do 30 years ago.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 16 Feb 24 9.10am
Originally posted by cryrst Which is good yeah; … unless it’s a fraudulent claim ! Whether good or bad depends on the circumstances, opinions and personal knowledge. No Judge is ever also a witness, victim, defendant or claimant. They will make decisions that those who are usually know are either right or wrong. I was unlucky. My barrister believes only 1 Judge in a 100 would have reached their decision given the evidence. I know the Judge was wrong. I know a fraudster got away with it, and together with the others who do, is one of the reasons our insurance premiums are rising so fast. Knowing something and getting a Judge to believe it are not the same. He had the right, and duty, to reach his decision. It wasn’t his fault he was asked to decide a case that his experience meant he was unsuited to or that my barrister is a specialist in the field who embarrassed him. 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 16 Feb 24 9.10am

Originally posted by cryrst

Which is good yeah; … unless it’s a fraudulent claim !

Whether good or bad depends on the circumstances, opinions and personal knowledge.

No Judge is ever also a witness, victim, defendant or claimant. They will make decisions that those who are usually know are either right or wrong.

I was unlucky. My barrister believes only 1 Judge in a 100 would have reached their decision given the evidence. I know the Judge was wrong. I know a fraudster got away with it, and together with the others who do, is one of the reasons our insurance premiums are rising so fast. Knowing something and getting a Judge to believe it are not the same. He had the right, and duty, to reach his decision. It wasn’t his fault he was asked to decide a case that his experience meant he was unsuited to or that my barrister is a specialist in the field who embarrassed him.

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

Stirlingsays 16 Feb 24 10.31am
Social and neo liberals and the left generally (I won't include lefty libertarians) All authoritarians. They are censorship, they are the authoritarians. Far more than any conservativism I remember. '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

16 Feb 24 10.31am