Censorship and Social Media

Spindle said:
According to you marriages of Bradford Pakistanis to their first cousin in Pakistan, who comes over here then has 5 kids, all of whom support Pakistan in the cricket and go to a Muslim school, live in a 90% Muslim area, are integrated.

Doesn't look it to most of us, maybe the grooming gangs don't stretch as far as Cornwall
Click to expand...
There is an awful lot of irrelevant diversion attempts in these pages, even recently in this one, but this reaches a new level.

Firstly, I have never suggested what you allege, so kindly withdraw it.

Secondly, what connection has who Pakistani men marry, support playing cricket or go to school, got to do with the Trump regime trying to bully officials carrying out UK and EU government policies?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So the constant refrain about governments making decisions for us is time contingent.
Click to expand...
When the matter being commented on was specifically the evolution of the EEC into the EU it most certainly does.

They did not hold a referendum then. In truth they ought not to have held one in 2016, as there was no constitutional need to do so. Cameron doing so being the biggest political blunder of my lifetime. Instead of consigning Farage to history as was planned, in order to preserve the Tory Party, he is still with us and the Tory Party are on the ropes. As the country is.

So much better if we had just rode out the storm.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
When the matter being commented on was specifically the evolution of the EEC into the EU it most certainly does.

They did not hold a referendum then. In truth they ought not to have held one in 2016, as there was no constitutional need to do so. Cameron doing so being the biggest political blunder of my lifetime. Instead of consigning Farage to history as was planned, in order to preserve the Tory Party, he is still with us and the Tory Party are on the ropes. As the country is.

So much better if we had just rode out the storm.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless it was the government's decision and that's what they're for.
 
I suppose the question that immediately comes to mind , is "would I ?" and it's a definite NO from me. 🙂
I have my own thoughts on Religion, and her actions seems motivated by religion, or certain beliefs. And this is a real tough one to balance, because I am a strong believer in free-speech, and the right to protest. In the abortion clinic instance, you have patients going about their lawful business, but they are likely to be in a vulnerable state of mind, and also physically sensitive. These have to be taken into consideration, and on balance, I would default to protection of the patients,
There are other ways to voice your opinions on abortion, rather than putting yourself in direct contact/view of patients attending a clinic. Why not demonstrate outside parliament, or at venues where doctors are attending, away from patients.?
That example is a tough one, and I don't pretend to have answers
 
Last edited:
Forest Hillbilly said:
I suppose the question that immediately comes to mins , is "would I ?" and it's a definite NO from me. 🙂
I have my own thoughts on Religion, and her actions seems motivated by religion, or certain beliefs. And this is a real tough one to balance, because I am a strong believer in free-speech, and the right to protest. In the abortion clinic instance, you have patients going about their lawful business, but they are likely to be in a vulnerable state of mind, and also physically sensitive. These have to be taken into consideration, and on balance, I would default to protection of the patients,
There are other ways to voice your opinions on abortion, rather than putting yourself in direct contact/view of patients attending a clinic. Why not demonstrate outside parliament, or at venues where doctors are attending, away from patients.?
That example is a tough one, and I don't pretend to have answers
Click to expand...

It's not a tough one for me.

As for 'lawful business'.....you can call it that, I call it something else.
 
Plus they are not 'patients'. There is nothing actually wrong with them. Nor, in the vast majority of cases, the life they are going into those clinics to have murdered.
 
Stirlingsays said:
The UK under social liberals and the left.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2004995209764241507
Click to expand...
Except, of course, she hasn’t been charged with “silently praying”, despite this claim and similar ones in part of the religious and right wing press.

This is from the Telegaph’s report on the matter:-

“The charge states that on four occasions between June and November, she stood within the buffer zone around a clinic in Birmingham with the intention of influencing a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.”

It will now be down to the prosecution to convince that whatever she was doing breached the requirements of the buffer zone, and her defence to convince it didn’t.

This lady has a long history of doing this, being supported by a group from the USA doing similar things there. Our laws have been tightened and clarified and this will be the first test of them to determine if they are now sufficient. If not, they will require even more work. The destination is clear. The government does not intend to allow any exceptions, or excuses, to those who oppose abortion in their determination to stop people feeling intimidated. Praying is not unlawful. Standing in buffer zones is. Pray elsewhere and there’s not an issue.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Except, of course, she hasn’t been charged with “silently praying”, despite this claim and similar ones in part of the religious and right wing press.

This is from the Telegaph’s report on the matter:-

“The charge states that on four occasions between June and November, she stood within the buffer zone around a clinic in Birmingham with the intention of influencing a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.”

It will now be down to the prosecution to convince that whatever she was doing breached the requirements of the buffer zone, and her defence to convince it didn’t.

This lady has a long history of doing this, being supported by a group from the USA doing similar things there. Our laws have been tightened and clarified and this will be the first test of them to determine if they are now sufficient. If not, they will require even more work. The destination is clear. The government does not intend to allow any exceptions, or excuses, to those who oppose abortion in their determination to stop people feeling intimidated. Praying is not unlawful. Standing in buffer zones is. Pray elsewhere and there’s not an issue.
Click to expand...
It seems a bit strange that a person standing silently anywhere, not speaking and not holding a placard can be considered asserting an influence over anybody else in the area.
Prostitutes standing on street corners is presumably no longer occurring for similar reasons.
And lone people standing at a bus stop, presumably trying to influence a bus driver to stop, is also on dodgy ground.
Don’t agree with the law on this, but hey ho, that’s only one of many that fall into the same category.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Except, of course, she hasn’t been charged with “silently praying”, despite this claim and similar ones in part of the religious and right wing press.

This is from the Telegaph’s report on the matter:-

“The charge states that on four occasions between June and November, she stood within the buffer zone around a clinic in Birmingham with the intention of influencing a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.”

It will now be down to the prosecution to convince that whatever she was doing breached the requirements of the buffer zone, and her defence to convince it didn’t.

This lady has a long history of doing this, being supported by a group from the USA doing similar things there. Our laws have been tightened and clarified and this will be the first test of them to determine if they are now sufficient. If not, they will require even more work. The destination is clear. The government does not intend to allow any exceptions, or excuses, to those who oppose abortion in their determination to stop people feeling intimidated. Praying is not unlawful. Standing in buffer zones is. Pray elsewhere and there’s not an issue.
Click to expand...

If there is an afterlife.

I don't fancy your chances.
 
Common Sense Club said:
It seems a bit strange that a person standing silently anywhere, not speaking and not holding a placard can be considered asserting an influence over anybody else in the area.
Prostitutes standing on street corners is presumably no longer occurring for similar reasons.
And lone people standing at a bus stop, presumably trying to influence a bus driver to stop, is also on dodgy ground.
Don’t agree with the law on this, but hey ho, that’s only one of many that fall into the same category.
Click to expand...
It might have been better to actually ban everyone from the exclusion zone unless they worked there or could prove they had an appointment. That way you wouldn't get into arguments about were they silently praying / protesting or just out walking the dog etc.
 
Badger11 said:
It might have been better to actually ban everyone from the exclusion zone unless they worked there or could prove they had an appointment. That way you wouldn't get into arguments about were they silently praying / protesting or just out walking the dog etc.
Click to expand...
I think that sets a precedence of no go areas. Which already exist but would now be made by law. I don't think the government will want to do it.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
There is an awful lot of irrelevant diversion attempts in these pages, even recently in this one, but this reaches a new level.

Firstly, I have never suggested what you allege, so kindly withdraw it.

Secondly, what connection has who Pakistani men marry, support playing cricket or go to school, got to do with the Trump regime trying to bully officials carrying out UK and EU government policies?
Click to expand...

The irrelevant diversion attempts are from you, such as here. I've literally given you an identical example here in Britain to challenge your answer, and instead of realising that it has been shot down, because you know full well the answer, you ring another of your accusation alarm bells.

Sad sad man
 
As the woman is merely silently standing in a public street and we are not mind-readers, could it not be a show of solidarity and celebration with the women that are having nascent human beings destroyed?
 
Last edited:
The feminist nutters are determined to encourage abortion, didn't that idiot Lily Allen proudly claim to have "4 or 5, I lost count". Yes, 30+ forms of contraception but let's get pregnant and use an expensive service because fem rights.
 
Spindle said:
The feminist nutters are determined to encourage abortion, didn't that idiot Lily Allen proudly claim to have "4 or 5, I lost count". Yes, 30+ forms of contraception but let's get pregnant and use an expensive service because fem rights.
Click to expand...

what genius managed to equate your feminist-rights with removing yourself from the gene pool ? its the very opposite of empowerment. The last bunch to go around sterilizing a ton of women were the Nazi's. "you will not reproduce , cos we said so". Its hardly a real type of freedom.
 
Common Sense Club said:
It seems a bit strange that a person standing silently anywhere, not speaking and not holding a placard can be considered asserting an influence over anybody else in the area.
Prostitutes standing on street corners is presumably no longer occurring for similar reasons.
And lone people standing at a bus stop, presumably trying to influence a bus driver to stop, is also on dodgy ground.
Don’t agree with the law on this, but hey ho, that’s only one of many that fall into the same category.
Click to expand...
You miss the point that everyone who makes these claims misses!

The “silently praying” justification is an irrelevance. It’s standing in the buffer zone in any way that potentially could be interpreted by a user of the clinic there as intimidatory. It’s their rights that are being protected, not those of those doing the standing. Their right to pray silently in any other nearby public space is not affected. When the only reason they choose to be in the buffer zone is to be seen by those using the clinic there is no reasonable defence possible available to them.

Bus stops won’t be in buffer zones. If a prostitute stood in one then they too risk arrest. Not though for prostitution but for standing in a prohibited area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top