Speakers corner live

[WILF 44,299]

18 hours ago, Waz said:

 

The black dude at around 17 minutes is as eloquent as f**k, well said dude.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by WILF

[WILF 44,299]

I’ll be honest, when that EDL started I thought Tommy was a bit of a dick and the EDL was just another excuse for a load of beer louts to makes c**ts of themselves.

However, hands up, I have changed my mind.....the bloke dropped the EDL like a stone (sensible imho) and seems to be going about things in a proper intelligent manner.

Fait play to the bloke, he has turned this cynic into an admirer.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

2 hours ago, WILF said:

I’ll be honest, when that EDL started I thought Tommy was a bit of a dick and the EDL was just another excuse for a load of beer louts to makes c**ts of themselves.

However, hands up, I have changed my mind.....the bloke dropped the EDL like a stone (sensible imho) and seems to be going about things in a proper intelligent manner.

Fait play to the bloke, he has turned this cynic into an admirer.

I'm still on the fence with him. He's had ample opportunity to align himself with legitimate journalism but has chosen to go with YouTube sensationalism instead. He seems more crowdfunded media figure than a political activist and now he's moved into his own brand he has full creative control over his content. Like when he was standing outside a courtroom to expose paedos when they're already on trial, it doesn't make much sense.

I see the appeal but if you're trying to bridge the partisan gap by exposing things that you believe the other side should see you play the game with the established rules. When he was working with the likes of Quilliam he had that opportunity and as a legitimate journalist, he would be able to hammer these points home to a point where he couldn't be ignored. Like I said on one of the other TR threads, he's become white noise in the land of echo chambers. Shame as he's an extremely intelligent and articulate bloke.

[Born Hunter 17,638]

Here's one for the free speech advocates;

Who would support the right for a Islamic fundamentalist or Communist or Corbanista etc to speak freely in public? Someone with views which are totally against everything you personally believe in. Would you support their right to free speech provided they were not committing harm to anyone themselves?

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Here's one for the free speech advocates;

Who would support the right for a Islamic fundamentalist or Communist or Corbanista etc to speak freely in public? Someone with views which are totally against everything you personally believe in. Would you support their right to free speech provided they were not committing harm to anyone themselves?

Absolutely.

[tilimangro 1,013]

6 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Here's one for the free speech advocates;

Who would support the right for a Islamic fundamentalist or Communist or Corbanista etc to speak freely in public? Someone with views which are totally against everything you personally believe in. Would you support their right to free speech provided they were not committing harm to anyone themselves?

Of course provided they aren’t inciting violence 

that’s the point

[Born Hunter 17,638]

9 minutes ago, tilimangro said:

Of course provided they aren’t inciting violence 

that’s the point

Do you not think that that is an infringement on free speech though. I mean if inciting harm is a justification for curtailing that most fundamental right then is it completely out there for the establishment to use the same argument against the likes of TR? I've heard it so many times that the likes of TR and Nigel Farage "normalise" far right views and many times stats are produced that show an increase in prejudice/assaults following such events with a causal implication. I think the only person that holds responsibility for harm is the perpetrator and to say otherwise risks the freedom so many claim to support.

Just food for thought.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Do you not think that that is an infringement on free speech though.

It is but with great power comes great responsibility. Inciting violence is dangerous, inciting people to act lawfully isn't. Emphasis should be on the speech part but now the can of worms is open where is the line actually drawn?

[Born Hunter 17,638]

Just now, ChrisJones said:

It is but with great power comes great responsibility. Inciting violence is dangerous, inciting people to act lawfully isn't. Emphasis should be on the speech part but now the can of worms is open where is the line actually drawn?

The harm principle!

Now that's the nitty-gritty. Any freedom carries risk, it's part and parcel. I know where I stand, I'm just interested in challenging the more centreground/layman on where they stand on it if they're gonna invoke it.

[WILF 44,299]

1 hour ago, ChrisJones said:

Absolutely.

Likewise......

and they do.......

 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

17 minutes ago, WILF said:

Likewise......

and they do.......

 

Isn't that double standard the point though. If you or I said what they say in Blighty we'd be arrested for inciting something? I'm all for equality but it has to be that.

[mackem 23,783]

So who is going on sunday to support the man and the cause?I have just spent a cold day protesting outside the houses of parliament,some people are truly dedicated albeit to the wrong cause  theres a guy there who has been protesting to reverse the brexit vote,he is from wales and he is outside parliament mon-Friday without fail since last September  goes back to wales every weekend and returns Monday morning 

[kanny 19,387]

 

[mackem 23,783]

He must have been the guy I heard was arrested 

[kanny 19,387]

12 minutes ago, mackem said:

He must have been the guy I heard was arrested