Reform

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
 
HKOwen said:
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
Click to expand...

Who supports Hamas, Owen? Name names and post some proof.

That’s a massive, massive claim you’ve made son.
 
Stirlingsays said:
You are a pathological liar.

Laws have literally been introduced to restrict speech, first starting in the 60s, but mostly Blair led, meaning that speech that was once legal is now illegal.....As I stated, mostly under the left but due to the Tories going woke, under them as well.

Any right wing worth the name would have removed these laws from the books the moment they took power.

You are so full of absolute drivel that if they somehow managed to drain it from you there would only be a puddle left.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Teddy Eagle said:
With figures based on a Freedom of Information request.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

And your interpretation is the only correct one. This is a new development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top