silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
England
On this we agree.
Reform
- Topic starter Stirlingsays
- Start date
It's a attempt to incite violence without crossing the technical line of criminal prosecution, same as those on here who support Hamas but have you wriggle with semantics and can't actually write what they believe.
I still say the " losing the job " interpretation is nonsense
I still say the " losing the job " interpretation is nonsense
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
A Daily Mail report? Says it all you need to know!Nobody?
Daily Mail investigation exposes number of people arrested for ‘offensive’ social media posts
A Daily Mail investigation has revealed an alarming rise in the number of arrests carried out by police forces across the country for “offensive” socialfreespeechunion.org
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
With figures based on a Freedom of Information request.
Almost like idiots are clumsy all the time isn’t it.
Nigel Farage: No police action over 'take the knife' comments
Nigel Farage: No police action over 'take the knife' comments
Who supports Hamas, Owen? Name names and post some proof.
That’s a massive, massive claim you’ve made son.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
More nonsense. As usual when you have nothing other than your prejudice to offer in support of your assertions you resort to personal insults. What a big man you are!
Blair’s government responded to the increased threat of terrorism by more closely defining what constitutes action as opposed to just opinion, specifically making the “glorification” of terrorism an offence. A completely sensible response to a threat to us all that every responsible government would have taken. They also introduced controls over demonstrations and protests. Not banning them, but trying to ensure they didn’t threaten or disrupt the lives of others. Which was another completely sensible move.
Nobody’s right to hold any opinion was compromised. Nor was their right to express it, unless there was a perceived threat of harm to others. Even you would accept you ought not be allowed to preach to people that they should arm themselves and murder all who don’t share their faith. If that’s true, then the only question is where the line is drawn. Potential harm being that line.
I am not your son, I have previously posted on here about this and don't intend to repeat.
Polanski himself is saying on Newsnight the picture was an incitement to violence and he was wrong to " inadvertently " post it without checking carefully. He takes responsibility but won't apologise, performative joke of a politician.
So Polanski himself is not going for the " losing his job " nonsense
So Polanski himself is not going for the " losing his job " nonsense
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
No. They are their interpretation of those figures. Describing them as “thought crimes”!
They weren’t! They were arrests under “Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Which, whatever you, the Daily Mail or the “Free Speech Union” might think, isn’t the same thing.
So absolutely nothing then, son.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
And your interpretation is the only correct one. This is a new development.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Nothing to do with me. Or the Daily Mail. It’s the law, so the job of the police, the CPS and other lawyers to determine.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Still your interpretation of official figures.
Childish behaviour which wont win him any friends. He accepts that it was offensive and he made a mistake, just apologise and move on.
By not apologising he is giving legs to what is really a non story. It will now move from politician made a mistake to politician not fit to be a leader.
Stupid, stupid stupid.
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
Not really because he framed that in a context of cuts to the civil service and used common parlance to do so.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
"Political language (and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists) is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." [Orwell]
It's almost as if he were alive now and had been reading the posts of Wisbelch and some others on here.
It's almost as if he were alive now and had been reading the posts of Wisbelch and some others on here.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
He accepted it was dangerous, not offensive. I think his 15 mins of fame is starting to unravel.
I think some older Greens who were there at the start are realising they have walked into being a Jew hating pro Islamist party who have attracted all sorts of bigoted far left wing rubbish discarded by Labour.
As night follows day etc
Rule 1 of the lefty hand book is to infiltrate major parties then turn them to your politics. The hard left have been trying that for years with Labour and have not succeeded, yet.
I think you have a point about the Greens. They use to be "nice" middle class people who worried about litter, animals and the environment. Today's Greens are all about diversity, Palestine and anything but the environment.
I do wonder about the high number of Muslims they have attracted. In most Muslim countries the environment is not high on their list of worries and yet in the Uk it is. Is it because it is easier to enter politics via the Greens than other parties?
Of course I maybe doing these people a disservice but I do suspect that the Greens have been infiltrated by the hard left and Islamists. Greta has tried to move the Green movement to her pro Palestinian view but it looks like she is being ignored by the real "Green" activists.
If I am right (I have no evidence) I would not be surprised to see a break away middle class eco party which reverts to it's traditional concerns.