• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Grays_1890 said:
Even if their kids are there and being shouted at? Thats not on? Neither is a politician having two cars written off due to damage
Click to expand...

I drew a distinction between public and private arenas. Heckling at parliament or constituency offices - great; healthy democracy. Turning up at someone's home or kids' school, obvious not. The media shouldn't be allowed to go to politicians' homes either

And criminal damage is criminal damage, and should be prosecuted accordingly
 
Just a thought -- but why don't one of the hard-brexiters come out and say that they think we should revoke Article 50? If they REALLY want WTO Brexit, surely they must know that the country is woefully unprepared for this. So do it in a realistic way -- stop the clock on Article 50, set a date, say 4 years from now (so start Article 50 again in 2 years) and say that on this date, we will leave the EU without a comprehensive deal.

Of course, the hard brexiters would also have to vote for a General Election to occur, and run on this type of Brexit. It won't happen, but if they truly believe that WTO Brexit is best, they should at least want to go about it in a more realistic way.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yes. The right to offend is very important to protect. It's the same territory as Charlie Hebo, Life of Brian etc. Restricting it marks a big step towards authoritarianism.

Do you really want to give up your right to call a politician or a policeman a fascist?
Click to expand...

Offend - fine.
You didn't say offend, you said abuse.
Are you genuinely saying abuse is ok?
(Because that IS what you said)
 
monkeybarry said:
Offend - fine.
You didn't say offend, you said abuse.
Are you genuinely saying abuse is ok?
(Because that IS what you said)
Click to expand...
Yes - abuse. I want to be able to call Donald trump, kim Jong un and Anna soubrey nazi scum. Because that's a fundamental of liberal democracies. Being free to disrespect the powerful
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yes - abuse. I want to be able to call Donald trump, kim Jong un and Anna soubrey nazi scum. Because that's a fundamental of liberal democracies. Being free to disrespect the powerful
Click to expand...
You sure you mean abuse and not protest?
Abuse is pretty extreme and violent by nature. Should that really be acceptable behaviour towards someone carrying out their daily business?
 
monkeybarry said:
You sure you mean abuse and not protest?
Abuse is pretty extreme and violent by nature. Should that really be acceptable behaviour towards someone carrying out their daily business?
Click to expand...

Its a tricky conversation that usually ends up getting bogged down in semantics.

What "abuse" means to you, it means something else to me, kind of thing.

We end up talking about the same thing, we mean the same intent, but argue about the use of a word instead of the actual point.

Also, the whole freedom of speech topic is a slippery slope.

Where do you draw the line? Should you draw a line? What punishment for crossing it? Big brother/nanny state...

Can of worms, mate, basically.
 
monkeybarry said:
You sure you mean abuse and not protest?
Abuse is pretty extreme and violent by nature. Should that really be acceptable behaviour towards someone carrying out their daily business?
Click to expand...

Abuse. It's important that you can call anyone the most offensive term you can think of. So long as it relates to what they do and what they think, rather than who they are

I personally wouldn't ever could Soubry 'Nazi scum', because I have a little bit better appreciation of history. Something more along the lines of 'Quisling scum' or 'Petain scum' might be more the right territory if you were trying to make that point

Holding power isn't normal daily business. Its something that quickly corrupts if there's not a level of continual rebellion against those who hold it
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Its a tricky conversation that usually ends up getting bogged down in semantics.

What "abuse" means to you, it means something else to me, kind of thing.

We end up talking about the same thing, we mean the same intent, but argue about the use of a word instead of the actual point.

Also, the whole freedom of speech topic is a slippery slope.

Where do you draw the line? Should you draw a line? What punishment for crossing it? Big brother/nanny state...

Can of worms, mate, basically.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech should be absolute, except where it breaks the law.

And the law says expression of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation are forbidden

Which I completely agree with apart from the word 'religion'. Religion should have the same status as political belief because it's something you choose, rather than are born with, so should be fair game

All that Vegan Society gonads calling milk drinkers 'calf killers' really offends me. But I think its great that we live in a society where they can put those posters up
 
There is no place in a decent society for intentionally causing harm to someone else - and that is what abuse is.
By definition.
 
I was watching a speech from Owen Smith in which I thought made some good points.
How is he generally regarded in UK politics?
 
Gutter Boy said:
Abuse. It's important that you can call anyone the most offensive term you can think of. So long as it relates to what they do and what they think, rather than who they are

I personally wouldn't ever could Soubry 'Nazi scum', because I have a little bit better appreciation of history. Something more along the lines of 'Quisling scum' or 'Petain scum' might be more the right territory if you were trying to make that point

Holding power isn't normal daily business. Its something that quickly corrupts if there's not a level of continual rebellion against those who hold it
Click to expand...

I agree. If fascists want to spout their hatred and nonsense let them and in turn opponents can debunk and ridicule the tossers.
 
Rorschach said:
I was watching a speech from Owen Smith in which I thought made some good points.
How is he generally regarded in UK politics?
Click to expand...
As the guy that tried to run a labour leadership coup and made a tit of himself.

Actually, that the second thought about him.
The first is....who? *Google*....oh he's that guy that tried to.....

I do agree he has some good ideas though. When the time comes for the next movement in the labour party, the likes of him and Chuka Umuna are likely to be policy driving voices.
 
Neil Warnock: "To hell with the rest of the world, I just want out of the bloody thing."

That right there is the problem with allowing the general public to decide issues of huge importance. Politicians are supposed to be leaders and should be able make the hard calls themselves.

Instead we have geriatric dinosaurs like Warnock allowed to have a decisive say. Ridiculous attitude as society becomes ever more global, particularly in a commercial sense.

Do your fudging jobs you useless fudges.
 
I wouldn't be so pleased to celebrate the death of British democracy. The day we finally give up power over the important decisions over our lives to the global financial elite
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back