• 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 (so long and thanks for all the fish)

In actual politics, seems there are measures coming in to ease burdens on the poorest classes, which is good to see. Not saying everything so far is the be all and end all, but adding up they will help.

Decent enough start
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
In actual politics, seems there are measures coming in to ease burdens on the poorest classes, which is good to see. Not saying everything so far is the be all and end all, but adding up they will help.

Decent enough start
Click to expand...

It will be interesting if they tackle some of the biggies while they have momentum and goodwill. Like breaking the binding of the price of electricity to the price of gas. Or taking the profit making out of social care (nationalise it)
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Yeo, most normal people manage to navigate life saying what they want, you have to wonder what exactly it is people are desperate to say that they feel they cant
Click to expand...

People don't have to be "desperate" to say something for free speech to matter. The whole point is that you don't find out where the line is until someone crosses it.

There are plenty of examples where speech has been curtailed or punished. In the UK, people have been arrested or prosecuted over offensive social media posts under laws like the Communications Act and Public Order Act, and there have been debates over police recording "non-crime hate incidents" based on lawful speech. In the US, while the First Amendment gives much stronger protection against government censorship, there are still examples such as protesters being arrested under laws later struck down by courts, attempts by public officials to pressure platforms over speech, or government employees facing restrictions on certain kinds of expression.

The issue isn't whether "normal people" can usually say what they want. Most can. The question is whether the state should have broad powers to decide what opinions or jokes cross the line. Free speech isn't really tested by popular opinions—it's tested by speech that people dislike.
 
Mikey10 said:
Doesn’t she still present the swimming on BBC? Wasn’t Lineker taken to task for expressing political opinions on social media?
Click to expand...

Yes she does. She’s very passionate about fairness in swimming and women’s sport in general. I thought Lineker was in hot water because he shared anti semitic posts on Twitter?
 
Jurgen the German said:
People don't have to be "desperate" to say something for free speech to matter. The whole point is that you don't find out where the line is until someone crosses it.

There are plenty of examples where speech has been curtailed or punished. In the UK, people have been arrested or prosecuted over offensive social media posts under laws like the Communications Act and Public Order Act, and there have been debates over police recording "non-crime hate incidents" based on lawful speech. In the US, while the First Amendment gives much stronger protection against government censorship, there are still examples such as protesters being arrested under laws later struck down by courts, attempts by public officials to pressure platforms over speech, or government employees facing restrictions on certain kinds of expression.

The issue isn't whether "normal people" can usually say what they want. Most can. The question is whether the state should have broad powers to decide what opinions or jokes cross the line. Free speech isn't really tested by popular opinions—it's tested by speech that people dislike.
Click to expand...

Ok and all of that is fine, but can you give me a solid example of one if not more of those times you think someone has been punished and silenced in the UK because of something that have said? I mean a real life example where you think they have been wrongly punished.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Ok and all of that is fine, but can you give me a solid example of one if not more of those times you think someone has been punished and silenced in the UK because of something that have said? I mean a real life example where you think they have been wrongly punished.
Click to expand...

Sure. Whether you agree with what they said isn't really the point—free speech is about protecting speech you dislike too.

Count Dankula (Mark Meechan)
was convicted under the Communications Act after posting a satirical YouTube video teaching his girlfriend's pug to perform a Nazi salute as a joke. The court found it was "grossly offensive", but many people—including those who found the joke distasteful—argued that a criminal conviction for an obvious attempt at comedy was a disproportionate restriction on free expression.

You don't have to like either person's views to think the state shouldn't be investigating or prosecuting people over lawful expression unless it directly incites violence or amounts to genuine criminal harassment. That's the distinction I'm making.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Sure. Whether you agree with what they said isn't really the point—free speech is about protecting speech you dislike too.

Count Dankula (Mark Meechan)
was convicted under the Communications Act after posting a satirical YouTube video teaching his girlfriend's pug to perform a Nazi salute as a joke. The court found it was "grossly offensive", but many people—including those who found the joke distasteful—argued that a criminal conviction for an obvious attempt at comedy was a disproportionate restriction on free expression.

You don't have to like either person's views to think the state shouldn't be investigating or prosecuting people over lawful expression unless it directly incites violence or amounts to genuine criminal harassment. That's the distinction I'm making.
Click to expand...

That one falls pretty much either side of the line for me. I think he took a stroke saying it was a joke. Teaching your dog to react to "gas the Jews" and "sieg heil" would take some hell of a lot of training........comes from a fairly weird place too. I am not offended by it, even as a Jew, but I think now and I thought at the time that the "juxtaposition" line was BS, but of course I can't prove it (wasn't my place to). Ultimately what I think doesn't matter anyway, I can accept that.

Edit: I have read the legal notes on it just now and it seems pretty clear they felt it landed on both sides but there was reasoning behind it not being just a joke, mainly that his GF was not on YT so the joke could have been done in private, but the release was to not provocative her with the joke, but viewers with the content, which given my comments above, I agree with.

On another note, apparently he has been found to be a member of racist message boards since (which have been closed thankfully) and is supporter of Restore, not that it has a bearing on your point or the above, just thought that it was interesting when it popped up on the search.
 
Last edited:
robp135 said:
Forgive my ignorance is there a reason why Burnham is going so big on drilling in the north sea?
Click to expand...

Just an empty gesture to Trump. Also to not spook the unions about the phase out (parallels with Thatcher and closing the pits)

The reality is it won't be out of the ground till 2040, while we'll be largely decarbonised (95%) by 2030.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Just an empty gesture to Trump. Also to not spook the unions about the phase out (parallels with Thatcher and closing the pits)

The reality is it won't be out of the ground till 2040, while we'll be largely decarbonised (95%) by 2030.
Click to expand...
TBF its unclear what the pledge is now to the drilling (unless I missed something today).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back