Black Lives Matter

[Regal Beagle]

1 hour ago, Iron Curtain said:

This is the challenge.

I don't agree with the violence or destruction, it helps people oppose what they are doing and moves their message from a  noble one to a one easily opposed, especially by those looking for any excuse not to support it. However, as I have said I do understand why its felt its needed.

Big changes in the past have been caused by such disruption... The Suffragettes being the best example I can think of.

 

Agreed, I totally understand why they did it. I probably agree that the statue should be moved to museum, or at least that proper factual context should be given to this person.

 

And agreed again that criminal behaviour has lead to better, fairer societies. I'm just not sure how much this statue was contributing to racism in 2020 and I certainly don't think that tearing it down was the only course of action.

[Iron Curtain]

12 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

I would disagree.

 

We have criminal offences to stop people making threats of violence or inciting criminal behaviour already. We don't need to restrict speech to prevent or punish those things.

 

I mentioned it in earlier in the thread, but that is the test you should consider when you are advocating the restrictions of any 'freedom' is whether you would honesty afford the same power to restrict freedom to your political opponent. (I don't simply mean 'a racist' when i say your opponent, i mean someone who is principally the direct opposite of you on the political spectrum).

 

Would you trust Boris Johnson and his Government to police what language and speech is acceptable and what isn't?

Would I have trusted Jeremy Corbyn? Certainly not, which is why I don't think the Government should have that power.

 

Its a really good point.

Interestingly and importantly I think the people will decide... I personally find it amazing that Millennials don't like the TV show "Friends" and find it none inclusive. 

However, the world will be theirs soon, and if their demand and supply indicates that Friends gets banished to the back shelf only to be remembered by me as a grumpy old man in 30 years then ... well... then so what!

The world has a repetitive cycle of old people not liking the world moving on from "Their culture".... Lets not forget all the old folk saying the beat;es were a bunch of long haired scruffs when they came out... People can moan and curse all they want, the youth of today will shape the world as they wish. They seem to be doing it in a more tolerant way than their predecessors.... good for them. 

If your favourite TV gets removed, download it from the internet and watch it. You can be angry and yearn for the "good old days", but believe me, your generation is "The right one"... its just the one you know.

 

[Iron Curtain]

13 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Its a really good point.

Interestingly and importantly I think the people will decide... I personally find it amazing that Millennials don't like the TV show "Friends" and find it none inclusive. 

However, the world will be theirs soon, and if their demand and supply indicates that Friends gets banished to the back shelf only to be remembered by me as a grumpy old man in 30 years then ... well... then so what!

The world has a repetitive cycle of old people not liking the world moving on from "Their culture".... Lets not forget all the old folk saying the beat;es were a bunch of long haired scruffs when they came out... People can moan and curse all they want, the youth of today will shape the world as they wish. They seem to be doing it in a more tolerant way than their predecessors.... good for them. 

If your favourite TV gets removed, download it from the internet and watch it. You can be angry and yearn for the "good old days", but believe me, your generation is "The right one"... its just the one you know.

 

I meant to say but believe me, your generation ISNT “the right one”.... it’s just the one you know!

oops!!

[geosname]

 

[TheSage]

41 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

I would disagree.

We have criminal offences to stop people making threats of violence or inciting criminal behaviour already. We don't need to restrict speech to prevent or punish those things.

I mentioned it in earlier in the thread, but that is the test you should consider when you are advocating the restrictions of any 'freedom' is whether you would honesty afford the same power to restrict freedom to your political opponent. (I don't simply mean 'a racist' when i say your opponent, i mean someone who is principally the direct opposite of you on the political spectrum).

Would you trust Boris Johnson and his Government to police what language and speech is acceptable and what isn't?

Would I have trusted Jeremy Corbyn? Certainly not, which is why I don't think the Government should have that power.

 

You can disagree all you like but you are wrong.

It has nothing at all to do with party politics but the law of the land. It's the judiciary that rightly should be the arbiter of these things.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean any extremist can be allowed to peddle their disgusting views. It comes with responsibilities.

That's why we have laws of slander and libel and defamation. Ever heard of them and what they are for?

 

 

[For Us All]

2 hours ago, Howjy04 said:

Time for a brew I think.I’d goose step to the kitchen but my legs are stiff this morning.

Don't mention if they're sore?

[For Us All]

BLM protests in London this weekend cancelled.

[Davebrad]

7 minutes ago, For Us All said:

BLM protests in London this weekend cancelled.

Courtesy of the Democratic  Football Lads Alliance, who call for people to travel to London to protect monuments... and then..

London Mayor Sadiq Khan pleaded with the public to stay at home amid concerns that further protests in London, particularly by far-right groups which “advocate hatred and division”, could lead to violence and disorder.

he didn't say that about the BLM protests, and if and its a big if, he had half a brain cell he must have knew there would be trouble...

 

[Iron Curtain]

22 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

Courtesy of the Democratic  Football Lads Alliance, who call for people to travel to London to protect monuments... and then..

London Mayor Sadiq Khan pleaded with the public to stay at home amid concerns that further protests in London, particularly by far-right groups which “advocate hatred and division”, could lead to violence and disorder.

he didn't say that about the BLM protests, and if and its a big if, he had half a brain cell he must have knew there would be trouble...

 

Are you a fan of the FLA?

 

[geosname]

1 hour ago, TheSage said:

You can disagree all you like but you are wrong.

It has nothing at all to do with party politics but the law of the land. It's the judiciary that rightly should be the arbiter of these things.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean any extremist can be allowed to peddle their disgusting views. It comes with responsibilities.

That's why we have laws of slander and libel and defamation. Ever heard of them and what they are for?

 

 

I would suggest you do not restrict speech. Simply charge with the specific offences when spoken.

I would also suggest that if any particular words are banned everyone using them gets charged with the same offence.

[geosname]

16 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Are you a fan of the FLA?

 

Who are they?

[Iron Curtain]

4 minutes ago, geosname said:

Who are they?

Football Lads Alliance 

[Davebrad]

10 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Are you a fan of the FLA?

 

no... neither BLM.

just a old guy who believes its up to my discretion  what I can look at, what I can read, what I can say, and what I can listen to, as long as I don't break the law of the land...

[geosname]

 

[geosname]

37 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Football Lads Alliance 

That's what they call themselves..... but who or even what are they?