-
Meanwhile, while the arguments here carry on about the threat to the UK of minority groups a nuclear superpower is stirring up major shit and a tit for tat escalation process has commenced.
Talk of a strategic cyber attack from the U.K. as an option. Not sure if that is the best battleground to select against a country that practices daily. It's still just talk though.
The problem with talking tough internationally for internal political needs is that you have to back the talk up or end up looking weak.
I'm certainly keeping a much closer eye on this than whether a self proclaimed journalist is allowed to stand on a soapbox.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
Jesus, despite it being repeated about 10 times now you still don't get it.
Firstly, lazy and uninformed not only referred o Southern but also you labelling everyone anti-Muslim. That is the definition of lazy, particularly considering you've been on TSF for ages and this discussion has been ongoing here on multiple threads for a least 3 years. You clearly didn't bother even reading the arguments put forward. As I said, lazy and uninformed. And btw if LS is a nutjob then fark me the bar for that is pretty bloody low. I guess all those gay people dressed as priests and nuns in gay pride parades are nut jobs as well?
No, I didn't. And I did read all the arguments. That's how I come to the conclusion I did - which despite all your shouting wasn't me labeling everyone anti muslim. My comments on LS are above in plain english, and I'm not going to repeat them, again.
Secondly, if you think it's totally acceptable that the rule of law and Western values should be ignored to placate the violent tendencies of a group of people who hold medieval beliefs then we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean it doesn't affect you directly so that means it can't exist right?
One or two situations have happened and you are making a pretty large statement on the back of that. It's not just me, it's everybody I know who lives here. What I see the rule of law and values hasn't changed a single bit.
Since what we're seeing is blasphemy laws coming back into force, would you seriously be willing to accept a society in which criticism and satire of religion are banned. In other words would you consider it acceptable for it to be a criminal offence to watch films like Life of Brian?
It's not my preference at all. But it's hardly a big deal if thats what it takes to keep the peace. Criticism of things which break laws, affect others etc is obviously a different story, but general criticism - whatever.
Do you also think it's acceptable that those blasphemy laws are coming back not because people have suddenly found faith again but because theyre shit scared of what a certain group of people might do if offended?
Seriously, how can you consider that acceptable?
I don't think that is what is happening, myself. I belive a couple of outspoken activists are shrieking that, but thats about it.
But hey, as long as the trains run on time right?
Never do from @MajorRage s neck of the woods. That would be a big surprise
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@crucial at 6:15am they always do ... at 6:15pm they rarely do
bloody lefties and their media mates.....
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
Meanwhile, while the arguments here carry on about the threat to the UK of minority groups a nuclear superpower is stirring up major shit and a tit for tat escalation process has commenced.
Talk of a strategic cyber attack from the U.K. as an option. Not sure if that is the best battleground to select against a country that practices daily. It's still just talk though.
The problem with talking tough internationally for internal political needs is that you have to back the talk up or end up looking weak.
I'm certainly keeping a much closer eye on this than whether a self proclaimed journalist is allowed to stand on a soapbox.
What an absurd post. Just because this might trump something else in terms of overall importance doesn't mean the issue recently discussed here is irrelevant or any less of a scandal. It is possible to talk about two topics at the same time you know.
This Russian thing will probably blow over after sabres are rattled but the blasphemy laws will still be coming back. Not that you care about that.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel , you seem to be pitching for an argument all the time at the moment.
I haven't said the other topic was irrelevant at all, I even made comment on it.. Just thought that there is another topical aspect of British politics to mention.
As you say there can be more than one topic. -
@crucial said in British Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel , you seem to be pitching for an argument all the time at the moment.
I haven't said the other topic was irrelevant at all, I even made comment on it.. Just thought that there is another topical aspect of British politics to mention.
As you say there can be more than one topic.Give me a break. I'm not after an argument. Just look at what you wrote for christ sake.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel , you seem to be pitching for an argument all the time at the moment.
I haven't said the other topic was irrelevant at all, I even made comment on it.. Just thought that there is another topical aspect of British politics to mention.
As you say there can be more than one topic.I would say you are the one pitching for an argument. So lets keep that sort of petty stupidity away. Seems a common tactic from some nowdays to disagree with whatever they they like but as soon as someone counters they cry 'I am not looking for an argument.. stop being so contrary'.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
Trying to make sense of the last few pages and just started watching that interview with 'LS' by Robinson.
Am I missing something because they both seem to be deluded in thinking that as someone asking to enter a country she has some rights?
She starts by saying 'I should be in Britain right now' then starts complaining about the tools being used to question her.
For starters when you rock up at a border your entry is at the whim of those operating the gate. I don't know of anywhere that doesn't retain the right to decide if they should let you in. If there is any inkling that you MAY cause a problem they will turn you back. If they even SUSPECT you MAY be deliberately trying to enter to cause a problem then, that triggers further actions.They hold power, for most people that power is absolute. No 'rights' apply.
No different to how with travel to or via the US under the current rules as they will do shit like demand your phone and access. It is quite feasible there for someone to be denied even transit because of something they write as opinion on a board such as this.
Any argument regarding 'shutting her up' can't ignore that fact that border control is overly sensitive and you can't apply the same scenario as if she was a British citizen.I've seen hysteric posts saying people can be jailed simply for speaking out about certain groups. Really? Got some examples? People may be being jailed for inciting violence or for hate speech but not for making comments.
As for hate speech, yes it is a difficult one to understand how and where the line is drawn. Eg someone can openly state 'I absolutely hate scousers, will bring my children up to hate them and will hurl abuse at them whenever I go to the football' but saying 'I hate all Polish' or 'I hate blacks' isn't.
Saying that though, it is pretty easy to understand when you may be nearing the line and it is your choice if you do so.Hysteric posts? Yeah you aint angling for an argument.... those in glass houses Crucial.
As for your point about countries having the right to deny entry... so what? Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it right to do something. If that is the best defence you have for the actions taken, you have already lost.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
What else I would tolerate is neither here nor there. It has zero meaningful effect on me if becomes illegal to write down and publish what LS did on her last visit.
Really you sure? How exactly would the law work where it is illegal to offend? And how would that not apply to you? You never offend anyone? Ever?
-
It isn't a defence for the actions at all. The stupidity of border control in the U.K. (and USA) knows no bounds at times.
I was countering the assumed position that she had some kind of right to enter in the first place, and that right was denied.
The actions taken at the border were quite predictable.Having a different view is not looking for a fight. Accusing people of stating a position that they haven't is.
Personally I do find the current Russia scenario far more interesting than the other discussion, but I'm not calling it irrelevant.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
It isn't a defence for the actions at all. The stupidity of border control in the U.K. (and USA) knows no bounds at times.
I was countering the assumed position that she had some kind of right to enter in the first place, and that right was denied.
The actions taken at the border were quite predictable.Having a different view is not looking for a fight. Accusing people of stating a position that they haven't is.
Personally I do find the current Russia scenario far more interesting than the other discussion, but I'm not calling it irrelevant.
Again, look at what you wrote. This happens time and time again with you. You throw a grenade, people react and then you act all offended and claim that you didn't mean THAT and accuse people of looking for a fight.
-
@jegga said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@jegga said in British Politics:
She wasn’t going to be violent but she’s the problem?
Obtuse maybe but that’s how it is, the authorities in the Uk are afraid of radical Muslims propensity for violence while at the same time pretending there’s no issue.People who incite violence are arguably much worse than those who commit it.
Your second comment is not incorrect, although as I have pointed out multiple times, the issue, in my opinion, is nowhere near as large as you guys are making it out to be.
People who are muslim and have been inciting violence towards others have been banned from entering the UK for a number of years (of course many are here already, many are born here and many hold British passports but that is not the same situation). Some may argue that this shift change of blocking those inciting violence within the Muslim community is well overdue.
You're drawing a very long bow there, Lauren Southern isn't the bad guy in this situation.
Legal definition of inciting violence:
When one person counsels, procures or commands another to commit a crime, whether or not that person commits the crime.Handing out a leaflet that states "Allah is gay" is in no way inciting violence. She was not commanding or counselling anybody to commit a crime. Legal definitions are very important, as if people just start making up their own definitions then in this case you could pretty much claim that anything mildly offensive is inciting violence, which is patently ridiculous.
-
What grenade?
I made a point. If you disagree with it then fine but don't assign me a position I didn't take.Perhaps the issue is your interpretation of what I have written and the conclusions you jump to.
Other posters in this thread have mentioned the same. It's like deliberate misinterpretation.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
What grenade?
I made a point. If you disagree with it then fine but don't assign me a position I didn't take.Perhaps the issue is your interpretation of what I have written and the conclusions you jump to.
Other posters in this thread have mentioned the same. It's like deliberate misinterpretation.
And it happens again.
-
@no-quarter said in British Politics:
@jegga said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@jegga said in British Politics:
She wasn’t going to be violent but she’s the problem?
Obtuse maybe but that’s how it is, the authorities in the Uk are afraid of radical Muslims propensity for violence while at the same time pretending there’s no issue.People who incite violence are arguably much worse than those who commit it.
Your second comment is not incorrect, although as I have pointed out multiple times, the issue, in my opinion, is nowhere near as large as you guys are making it out to be.
People who are muslim and have been inciting violence towards others have been banned from entering the UK for a number of years (of course many are here already, many are born here and many hold British passports but that is not the same situation). Some may argue that this shift change of blocking those inciting violence within the Muslim community is well overdue.
You're drawing a very long bow there, Lauren Southern isn't the bad guy in this situation.
Legal definition of inciting violence:
When one person counsels, procures or commands another to commit a crime, whether or not that person commits the crime.Handing out a leaflet that states "Allah is gay" is in no way inciting violence. She was not commanding or counselling anybody to commit a crime. Legal definitions are very important, as if people just start making up their own definitions then in this case you could pretty much claim that anything mildly offensive is inciting violence, which is patently ridiculous.
The legal meaning of procure is much wider than my lay understanding.
Not saying that this case fits necessarily just that it opens an area that could be interpreted as such.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
What grenade?
I made a point. If you disagree with it then fine but don't assign me a position I didn't take.Perhaps the issue is your interpretation of what I have written and the conclusions you jump to.
Other posters in this thread have mentioned the same. It's like deliberate misinterpretation.
And it happens again.
What happens again?
You assigned me the position of saying your topic was irrelevant. I did no such thing and pointed that out.
If you want to read something between they lines that is up to you, but if I then point out that I had no intention for that meaning please accept that as the truth instead of doubling down and accusing me of some kind of entrapment. -
@catogrande
This is it:
Fair play, that does play pretty bad on its own especially with an army of EDL members. I think Piers Morgan challenged him on it in his very brief interview, I'll have to re-watch that to refresh my memoryThere is no way he should of said it but after hearing his full story in the Oxford talk I can't blame him for saying it.
I kind of look at it like an old Zimbabwean flatmate of one of my best friends in the UK. He hated black people, I thought he was a total fluffybunny and generally avoided him. That was until someone explained to me about what happened in Zimbabwe and the government sponsored murder of his father and other family members. Sure he was racist but you had to have some sympathy in context. He's actually since found Jesus and now some of his best friends are black christians so yay born again Christians! (in some instances)
Tommy is certainly far more careful with words nowadays. He records every interview involved in now, often live over facebook due to the amount of misquotation. I understand he is suing the police currently, from the videos I've seen he actually has a hell of a case if there is still justice over there.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
What else I would tolerate is neither here nor there. It has zero meaningful effect on me if becomes illegal to write down and publish what LS did on her last visit.
Really you sure? How exactly would the law work where it is illegal to offend? And how would that not apply to you? You never offend anyone? Ever?
I offend a lot of people all the time every day - I question everything, I have argued with CEOs of large companies. . I pick my battles and fight tooth and nail for them. i take some things personally, and others not - it's my job.
At no stage, at any point, have I said it should be illegal to offend people. Quote me where I said anything even close to that.
Colossal difference between saying 'It should be illegal to offend' and not being bothered about a law which will only have an effect on right wing trouble makers.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
if there is still justice over there.
Id there is still justice over here?
And some of you wonder why those of us who live here are getting pissed off.
Seriously, get a fucking grip. I'm not fucking joking, I cannot debate with this.
British Politics