-
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
-
I had to Google Chelsea Russel.
Got 1 article on the first page.
Her crime is posting the "n" word on an Instagram rap tribute for a 13 year old who died in an accident while riding his bike.
She's 19 years old.
I've long wondered the uniform insanity the world has with reference to the "n" word.
While writing this I can confirm that all readers will know in detail what the word is, it's historical content, various spellings, the reason for it's excommunication and most alarmingly where and how to find footage of it being "appropriately" sung or recited in a movie in under 5 minutes.
A 19 year old has a criminal conviction, a receipt for 850 quid, a curfew and an ankle bracelet beacause she **wrote a word **.
She even misspelled it 😀
It blows my little mind. Modern day emporer with no clothes.
It all started with KFC you know 😉
Don't read this story if you're not in the mood to process complete fuckwittery
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
What are your views on the latest Dankula ruling?
-
@siam said in British Politics:
I had to Google Chelsea Russel.
Got 1 article on the first page.
Her crime is posting the "n" word on an Instagram rap tribute for a 13 year old who died in an accident while riding his bike.
She's 19 years old.
I've long wondered the uniform insanity the world has with reference to the "n" word.
While writing this I can confirm that all readers will know in detail what the word is, it's historical content, various spellings, the reason for it's excommunication and most alarmingly where and how to find footage of it being "appropriately" sung or recited in a movie in under 5 minutes.
A 19 year old has a criminal conviction, a receipt for 850 quid, a curfew and an ankle bracelet beacause she **wrote a word **.
She even misspelled it 😀
It blows my little mind. Modern day emporer with no clothes.
It all started with KFC you know 😉
Don't read this story if you're not in the mood to process complete fuckwittery
That punishment is beyond incredible. If that kind of language doesn't belong in civil discourse then shouldn't they be targetting the artists themselves and banning those lyrics? If unacceptable on a private Instagram post then surely playing the music in any public place should be absolutely beyond the pale.
There is absolutely no thinking or sense behind these rulings.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
What are your views on the latest Dankula ruling?
Que?
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
What are your views on the latest Dankula ruling?
Que?
What was difficult about that question? Scroll up. His appeal didn't even get a hearing. What are your views on that?
-
Those rulings are absolutely insane and clearly infringe on people's basic human rights as part of a free society. The weakest people in all of this are those that disagree with these people politically so go along with whatever ridiculous justifications are put forward. This kind of thing will hurt everyone if it continues - the great man Thomas Sowell put it best:
"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long".
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
What are your views on the latest Dankula ruling?
Que?
What was difficult about that question? Scroll up. His appeal didn't even get a hearing. What are your views on that?
I'm questioning why you are directly asking me for my views about one thing while quoting my post about something else.
But, seeing as how it is apparently important to reiterate my view on the Dankula case, here goes..
I disagree somewhat that his case is primarily about free speech and that it has been latched onto by political groups as an agenda push. The case is about interpretation and application of the communications act changes and is also about setting the level of breach.
My opinion is that his 'brand' of humour isn't funny and has opened him up to a spurious prosecution from other fuddy duddies that also don't 'get him'.
I think that the prosecution was within the law but had elements of oversensitive opinions. I also think that the conviction was a poor decision when taking in all of the facts. As this was a test case for the laws it is important that a high level assessment is done and handed down to set precedent. I think the original Sherriff looked to pass the buck hoping it would fade away or be taken up the chain.
As for the latest development, it appears he is now trapped in a legal nightmare where the system is digging the hole deeper in hope that it will go away. This isn't rare in courts and is something that happens all the time to 'minor' offences.
I do hope that he keeps fighting this otherwise his 'level of offending' becomes record toward the level for conviction.
I also hope that the use of his case as 'evidence' of some kind of extreme left wing bias throughout the system stops. His situation is one of non partisan bureaucracy and bullshit that needs fixing for everyone despite political slant.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
What are your views on the latest Dankula ruling?
Que?
What was difficult about that question? Scroll up. His appeal didn't even get a hearing. What are your views on that?
I'm questioning why you are directly asking me for my views about one thing while quoting my post about something else.
But, seeing as how it is apparently important to reiterate my view on the Dankula case, here goes..
I disagree somewhat that his case is primarily about free speech and that it has been latched onto by political groups as an agenda push. The case is about interpretation and application of the communications act changes and is also about setting the level of breach.
My opinion is that his 'brand' of humour isn't funny and has opened him up to a spurious prosecution from other fuddy duddies that also don't 'get him'.
I think that the prosecution was within the law but had elements of oversensitive opinions. I also think that the conviction was a poor decision when taking in all of the facts. As this was a test case for the laws it is important that a high level assessment is done and handed down to set precedent. I think the original Sherriff looked to pass the buck hoping it would fade away or be taken up the chain.
As for the latest development, it appears he is now trapped in a legal nightmare where the system is digging the hole deeper in hope that it will go away. This isn't rare in courts and is something that happens all the time to 'minor' offences.
I do hope that he keeps fighting this otherwise his 'level of offending' becomes record toward the level for conviction.
I also hope that the use of his case as 'evidence' of some kind of extreme left wing bias throughout the system stops. His situation is one of non partisan bureaucracy and bullshit that needs fixing for everyone despite political slant.
I'm sorry that I made it so difficult for you. And I never once asked you to reiterate your views on the Dankula case, I asked for your views on the latest ruling. Have you read any of the grounds? You don't think there is a political slant there?
-
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
Ha! Entering these threads is like walking into an evangelist church and trying to explain about sky fairies. Pretty easy to be a contrary opinion to other posters.
My original comment was about the conspiracy theories around MSM.
What is wrong with the way I am responding? I am answering your questions around a topic I didn't directly approach and doing so in a clear and unemotive manner. Would you rather I started some name calling and making sweeping statements?
I also explained that I can't watch the video at the moment or did that part skip past you? As I said, I'm happy to read detail about the latest development and make additional comment. I just can't find any at the moment.
-
You have no high ground when you charge back into a thread and accuse a poster of being close to engaging in conspiracy theories.. a snide insult done entirely on purpose I am sure.
Then accuse another poster of trolling, simply for querying your position.
Nothing much harmful in any of that , but save the indignation and complimentary self assessment, nobody is buying it. -
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
Yeah, I agree with you, I wasn't being sarcastic. My evidence for that is sparse, freely admit that.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
You have no high ground when you charge back into a thread and accuse a poster of being close to engaging in conspiracy theories.. a snide insult done entirely on purpose I am sure.
Then accuse another poster of trolling, simply for querying your position.
Nothing much harmful in any of that , but save the indignation and complimentary self assessment, nobody is buying it.Thank you for your judgment from the sidelines.
'Charge back into a thread'? Is there some kind of regular post rate that must be maintained before someone can make comment? If so please advise so I can ignore the thread entirely and you can all preach to yourselves.
'Snide insult'? - no, just stating my opinion. Yes, it was done on purpose. Can't dispute that when I typed my opinion and hit enter. If you are implying I was trying to toss a grenade among the seagulls then no, that wasn't my intention.
The poster wasn't querying my position around the post he quoted, it was about another topic. -
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
Yeah, I agree with you, I wasn't being sarcastic. My evidence for that is sparse, freely admit that.
Thanks. It is just a commonly held view on these threads with little evidence other than opinion and ours obviously differs.
-
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
British Politics