Labour buying votes?
Quote:
As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars.
...but It may not work like that the other way round. Freedom of speech doesn't appear to work as a defence for making a racist (other minority groups are available) remark.
BTW, could we start to put the identity of the quoted poster or the source into our quotes. It makes so much sense and it's easy to do. I would have done so for the first quote above, but as he wasn't named in the quote it gets too difficult to do. Thanks
As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars.
Originally Posted by SkyDiver69
Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces.
BTW, could we start to put the identity of the quoted poster or the source into our quotes. It makes so much sense and it's easy to do. I would have done so for the first quote above, but as he wasn't named in the quote it gets too difficult to do. Thanks
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 23rd Sep 2013 at 21:13.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
NutLoose
When I was a cadet, being prepared to join an officer's mess, I was taught not to discuss religion, politics or sex in the mess.
When I joined my first mess I found that the mess members were scrupulous about not discussing religion and politics. However... sex was not entirely off the menu (if you see what I mean).
You didn't have to bring religion into this thread.
Rgds SOS
When I joined my first mess I found that the mess members were scrupulous about not discussing religion and politics. However... sex was not entirely off the menu (if you see what I mean).
You didn't have to bring religion into this thread.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 25th Sep 2013 at 10:54.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,452
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
And when I joined the RAF I was taught to read through everything thoroughly to avoid any errors.
If you read the thread, specifically posts 13, 14 and post 17 that actually brought religion into it, you will realise you are wiggling your finger in the wrong direction, I simply added a juxtapose, to counter their point.
.
If you read the thread, specifically posts 13, 14 and post 17 that actually brought religion into it, you will realise you are wiggling your finger in the wrong direction, I simply added a juxtapose, to counter their point.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 23rd Sep 2013 at 22:19.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
NutLoose
Post #13 is a quote from skydiver69 re-posted by airpig which mentions religion.
Post #14 by Courtney Mil doesn't.
Post #17 by skydiver69 doesn't.
On re-reading your post at #18 I get your point. Sorry if I got it wrong.
You must agree that this thread isn't about religion, its about politics, we'll deal with sex on another thread I hope.
Rgds SOS
Post #14 by Courtney Mil doesn't.
Post #17 by skydiver69 doesn't.
On re-reading your post at #18 I get your point. Sorry if I got it wrong.
You must agree that this thread isn't about religion, its about politics, we'll deal with sex on another thread I hope.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 23rd Sep 2013 at 22:50. Reason: Nut
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,452
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Apologies, my typo, should have been 12, gawd knows where I got the other two from.
Last edited by NutLoose; 23rd Sep 2013 at 23:06.
As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars (Courtney Mil).
Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces (Skydiver69).
Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces (Skydiver69).
I think it was Stephen Fry who, in his own inimitable way, opined that 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fxxxxx what?'
And surely that is the problem with the concepts behind s4 and taking it on from there, verbally attacking or abusing anybody, whether or not they wear uniform. At it's heart, this will always come down to a contest between 2 opinions: namely the right of one person to exercise freedom of speech in stating an opinion i.e. as in skydiver's example and the right of the person listening or hearing that opinion to be offended simply because they don't agree with it. We have somehow allowed the principles of not being threatened to become mixed with the principles of not being offended. The 2 are subtley different, but as is implicit in Fry's argument, these 2 separate principles have merged and we now all too often hear of individuals being citing some sort of offence simply because they have lost an argument.
I'd like to think that in a grown up world, the principles behind both sides of the argument (freedom of speech vs the concept of offence) could prompt an interesting philosophical discussion, but sadly, in our current shallow day and age I can only see it deteriorating into a playground argument between 2 individuals stamping their feet. And from there, taking it back to the original thread, I can see that the only people that will realistically benefit from any such move are the lawyers who will spend days and weeks in court having such philosophical discussions whilst the legal bills get steadily higher.
Gentleman Aviator
Also wonder whether the new law would be similar to current laws relating to minority "hate" crimes: the military being added to race and gender offences for example. Just a thought.
So military will have the same (extra?) rights as ethnic minorities, LGBT and the disabled. Hmmmmmmmm.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,452
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Sadly the way the world has gone, totally over the top PC wise.
Look at TV, you used to get the odd warning quite correctly that this programme may contain flashing images to warn those effected by such.
but now we have "this may contain scenes of violence, of a sexual nature etc, disturbing to some viewers..
If I was going to watch on TV a film called say "Black lesbian bloodbath gangbang" I would expect to see some content based on that and do not need to be warned beforehand.
Heck you even get it on the news these days.
PS SOSL, got the subject in for you
Why should we have extra rights for anyone??
My premiss has always been if you are in this country, you should abide by the laws of this county, Sharia law etc is not the law of this country, if you wish to live under such a rule of law there is nothing to stop you leaving and going to a Country where that law exists.
It should be one law dealt fairly regardless of religion, creed, colour, persuation or standing.
The we will give you life if you kill a policeman was a case in point, that instantly put those killed that do not fall into that category as a second class citizen, because the law will not treat the perpetrator the same, a life is a life no matter what your employment and the law should reflect that.
Look at TV, you used to get the odd warning quite correctly that this programme may contain flashing images to warn those effected by such.
but now we have "this may contain scenes of violence, of a sexual nature etc, disturbing to some viewers..
If I was going to watch on TV a film called say "Black lesbian bloodbath gangbang" I would expect to see some content based on that and do not need to be warned beforehand.
Heck you even get it on the news these days.
PS SOSL, got the subject in for you
Why should we have extra rights for anyone??
My premiss has always been if you are in this country, you should abide by the laws of this county, Sharia law etc is not the law of this country, if you wish to live under such a rule of law there is nothing to stop you leaving and going to a Country where that law exists.
It should be one law dealt fairly regardless of religion, creed, colour, persuation or standing.
The we will give you life if you kill a policeman was a case in point, that instantly put those killed that do not fall into that category as a second class citizen, because the law will not treat the perpetrator the same, a life is a life no matter what your employment and the law should reflect that.
Last edited by NutLoose; 24th Sep 2013 at 12:03.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,601
Likes: 0
Received 55 Likes
on
37 Posts
I would expect to see some content based on that and do not need to be warned beforehand.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
This government and previous governments, for the last 20 years or more have enacted so much "knee jerk" legislation, mostly driven by venal press barons and other media interests.
It seems to me that the long standing common law (It is an offence to harm another innocent person: their body; their mind; their reputation or their property) has become diffused into all sorts of specific categories of harm such as racially aggravated, religiously aggravated, sexually aggravated etc etc.
This may be confusing to the public and probably to lawyers and even judges.
I don't think the mindset (Mens Rea) of the offender should define the harm suffered by the victim but it should be taken into account when sentencing.
Sorry for the rambling post. My point is we already have all the laws we need for this type of crime. New laws don't cut it. Only enforcement works.
Rgds SOS
It seems to me that the long standing common law (It is an offence to harm another innocent person: their body; their mind; their reputation or their property) has become diffused into all sorts of specific categories of harm such as racially aggravated, religiously aggravated, sexually aggravated etc etc.
This may be confusing to the public and probably to lawyers and even judges.
I don't think the mindset (Mens Rea) of the offender should define the harm suffered by the victim but it should be taken into account when sentencing.
Sorry for the rambling post. My point is we already have all the laws we need for this type of crime. New laws don't cut it. Only enforcement works.
Rgds SOS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,452
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
It's on Sky 580
Melchett,
In your post 27 you attribute the first quote to me ("As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier..."). I just want to point out that I did not make that statement, I was quoting a previous post.
I know I didn't identify the poster, that was because the previous person that quoted him didn't include =Poster_name] on his quote - hence my asking if we could ID quotes and sources.
In your post 27 you attribute the first quote to me ("As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier..."). I just want to point out that I did not make that statement, I was quoting a previous post.
I know I didn't identify the poster, that was because the previous person that quoted him didn't include =Poster_name] on his quote - hence my asking if we could ID quotes and sources.
Gentleman Aviator
This government and previous governments, for the last 20 years or more have enacted so much "knee jerk" legislation, mostly driven by venal press barons and other media interests.
I think the Birmingham 6 were too.....
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 24th Sep 2013 at 19:51.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago
Dr who tried to/will try to bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago.
