We Can Relax Now,they've Got Him.

[jacknife 2,005]

 

The man is a cowardly imbecile and he is lucky he did not approach somebody like me but a reasonable woman with good self-control (yes, I know what that is saying about me, Lol!) Freedom of speech is way over-rated and is responsible for a lot of abuse. There are quite a few people for whom freedom of speech is a license to harm others. [/quote

 

Are you a Muslim???

 

If not why would the man be lucky he didn't ask you a simple question

[Guest Navek]

The man is a cowardly imbecile and he is lucky he did not approach somebody like me but a reasonable woman with good self-control (yes, I know what that is saying about me, Lol!) Freedom of speech is way over-rated and is responsible for a lot of abuse. There are quite a few people for whom freedom of speech is a license to harm others.

 

why would you of whipped out your vest if he dared to question you lol Edited March 24, 2016 by Navek

[jacknife 2,005]

It shows how pathetic things have become in this country when someone gets arrested for saying he asked someone a question or he said something to someone

 

What next arrested for thinking something

[planete 120]

I am not a muslim. I am also fully aware that this man would very likely not have dared approach an unknown man in the street and asked him such a question. As a woman I find this despicable and I would have told him so in no uncertain terms. As a five foot midget of a certain age I am not about to start a bout of fisticuffs.

 

I agree that arresting him is plain daft though. It is giving him far too much importance.

[BGD 6,437]

 

People have already lost their lives over it , its not to be condoned nor is it acceptable. When folk know how inflammable such things are and the turmoil that ensues then it is something beyond a sense of humour or even the boundaries of free speech as free speech should not lead to human suffering.

 

 

Restricting free speech is in the same category as restriction religious freedom........ To accept restrictions on one is to accept restrictions on both. Neither of which I agree with. If people can't handle the implications of a liberal society, they should f**k off and if the people of Britain decide they don't want a liberal society I'll f**k off.

 

 

The people of Britian have repeatedly voted for Governments that bring in new laws to curb free speech so off you f**k I guess?

Edited March 24, 2016 by BGD

[desertbred 5,490]

 

People have already lost their lives over it , its not to be condoned nor is it acceptable. When folk know how inflammable such things are and the turmoil that ensues then it is something beyond a sense of humour or even the boundaries of free speech as free speech should not lead to human suffering.

 

 

So we should give up partially one of the fundamental freedoms of a democratic and progressive society because some people cannot control their emotions and respond to things they don't like to hear with violence? Nah, no way, we should rid society of people that respond to things they don't like hearing with violence.

 

Restricting free speech is in the same category as restriction religious freedom........ To accept restrictions on one is to accept restrictions on both. Neither of which I agree with. If people can't handle the implications of a liberal society, they should f**k off and if the people of Britain decide they don't want a liberal society I'll

Freedom of speech ,thoughts are fundamental basic rights but with such freedoms come responsibility both morally and legally. You talk of freedoms but your Government introduces laws to curb and limit the citizens freedoms on a annual basis , you talk of democracy yet a minority dictate policy for the entire population. Restriction on hunting , restrictions on which rubbish goes in which colour bin, restrictions on wearing a hoody in a Shopping centre these freedoms you have and are so proud of. Wake up now the Government want to remain part of Europe but want to restrict freedom of movement, you want certain freedoms to apply to certain people but be restricted to others. Personally I wouldnt let half of you walk down the street without two carers or put you in charge of making a pot noodle. The freedom of speech should also involve putting your brain in gear before flapping your gums. A woman posts about another woman being accosted in the street and the usual suSpects attack her because of her feelings must be one of these freedoms you hold so highly.

Edited March 24, 2016 by desertbred

[Mr Wasp 219]

I was having a discussion with a mate yesterday about the bombings, his brother was there who is a serving police officer.

Anyway, the discussion turned to problems in this country with terrorists etc and how people feel about Muslims in general.

 

It was pointed out by this copper that "racial crimes" are deemed one of the highest priorities by the police, it far outranks other crimes like car theft or other thefts and any reported racial crime is looked at, at the highest level.

This is a directive straight from the government.

 

He also pointed out that racial crimes include verbal abuse.

 

So, whilst your car is being stolen, no copper will turn up because an immigrant down the road feels that someone might of racially offended them.

[Born Hunter 17,909]

 

 

People have already lost their lives over it , its not to be condoned nor is it acceptable. When folk know how inflammable such things are and the turmoil that ensues then it is something beyond a sense of humour or even the boundaries of free speech as free speech should not lead to human suffering.

 

 

So we should give up partially one of the fundamental freedoms of a democratic and progressive society because some people cannot control their emotions and respond to things they don't like to hear with violence? Nah, no way, we should rid society of people that respond to things they don't like hearing with violence.

 

Restricting free speech is in the same category as restriction religious freedom........ To accept restrictions on one is to accept restrictions on both. Neither of which I agree with. If people can't handle the implications of a liberal society, they should f**k off and if the people of Britain decide they don't want a liberal society I'll

Freedom of speech ,thoughts are fundamental basic rights but with such freedoms come responsibility both morally and legally. You talk of freedoms but your Government introduces laws to curb and limit the citizens freedoms on a annual basis , you talk of democracy yet a minority dictate policy for the entire population. Restriction on hunting , restrictions on which rubbish goes in which colour bin, restrictions on wearing a hoody in a Shopping centre these freedoms you have and are so proud of. Wake up now the Government want to remain part of Europe but want to restrict freedom of movement, you want certain freedoms to apply to certain people but be restricted to others. Personally I wouldnt let half of you walk down the street without two carers or put you in charge of making a pot noodle. The freedom of speech should also involve putting your brain in gear before flapping your gums. A woman posts about another woman being accosted in the street and the usual suSpects attack her because of her feelings must be one of these freedoms you hold so highly.

 

 

I'm fully aware of all you say, which is why I stand in strong opposition to your original stance. Successive governments have without doubt infringed on our liberty! I'm not supporting that and I'd fight to have it returned. This subject is a relative one, and the UK is a relatively liberal democracy. A handful of infringements on liberty do not suddenly make the country aliberal or totalitarian.

 

The modern social liberal policies of equality over liberty are nothing more than attempts to fight the liberal policies of freedom of speech etc when you hear things you don't like. It's all bullshit and rather than go "oh well, f**k liberty that nasty man is saying things that offend us lot" we should be using that same fundamental freedom to fight back in a democratic civilized way and thus let society decide which view is favored without setting about progressively selling our liberty!

 

Let people say hateful things, let them be bigots and demagogues. They should have that right, because with it comes the right to combat them leaving logic, truth and education the ultimate authority. Not the state!

[desertbred 5,490]

 

 

 

People have already lost their lives over it , its not to be condoned nor is it acceptable. When folk know how inflammable such things are and the turmoil that ensues then it is something beyond a sense of humour or even the boundaries of free speech as free speech should not lead to human suffering.

 

 

So we should give up partially one of the fundamental freedoms of a democratic and progressive society because some people cannot control their emotions and respond to things they don't like to hear with violence? Nah, no way, we should rid society of people that respond to things they don't like hearing with violence.

 

Restricting free speech is in the same category as restriction religious freedom........ To accept restrictions on one is to accept restrictions on both. Neither of which I agree with. If people can't handle the implications of a liberal society, they should f**k off and if the people of Britain decide they don't want a liberal society I'll

Freedom of speech ,thoughts are fundamental basic rights but with such freedoms come responsibility both morally and legally. You talk of freedoms but your Government introduces laws to curb and limit the citizens freedoms on a annual basis , you talk of democracy yet a minority dictate policy for the entire population. Restriction on hunting , restrictions on which rubbish goes in which colour bin, restrictions on wearing a hoody in a Shopping centre these freedoms you have and are so proud of. Wake up now the Government want to remain part of Europe but want to restrict freedom of movement, you want certain freedoms to apply to certain people but be restricted to others. Personally I wouldnt let half of you walk down the street without two carers or put you in charge of making a pot noodle. The freedom of speech should also involve putting your brain in gear before flapping your gums. A woman posts about another woman being accosted in the street and the usual suSpects attack her because of her feelings must be one of these freedoms you hold so highly.

 

 

I'm fully aware of all you say, which is why I stand in strong opposition to your original stance. Successive governments have without doubt infringed on our liberty! I'm not supporting that and I'd fight to have it returned. This subject is a relative one, and the UK is a relatively liberal democracy. A handful of infringements on liberty do not suddenly make the country aliberal or totalitarian.

 

The modern social liberal policies of equality over liberty are nothing more than attempts to fight the liberal policies of freedom of speech etc when you hear things you don't like. It's all bullshit and rather than go "oh well, f**k liberty that nasty man is saying things that offend us lot" we should be using that same fundamental freedom to fight back in a democratic civilized way and thus let society decide which view is favored without setting about progressively selling our liberty!

 

Let people say hateful things, let them be bigots and demagogues. They should have that right, because with it comes the right to combat them leaving logic, truth and education the ultimate authority. Not the state

My original reference to Free speech was promoting self regulation and self control on ones utterances not interference of the state, The laws of libel, slander, defamation and racial /religious intolerance are laws introduced to restrict the right to express verbally in a public place ones feelings or thoughts. The major reason is that the majority of the utterances are to instigate or to create civil unrest. These laws are not enforceable in the houses of parliament under parliamentary freedom so a slight double standard. As stated before freedoms are rights as with all rights abuse them and they will one way or another be taken away.

Edited March 24, 2016 by desertbred

[Born Hunter 17,909]

If they can be taken away they ain't rights, they're privileges. You can't abuse the right to free speech by saying nasty things, that's the whole point in it being a supposed right. Determination of whether something is a so called 'abuse' is solely down to whether you like what's said or not, lol. The real abuse is when 'reasonable' folk demand certain things be outlawed because its offensive. Right at that point society gives away their 'right' and accepts their privilege.

 

Promoting careful use of 'freedom of speech' for the above reason though, is a sad reality that I'm forced to agree with.

[jacknife 2,005]

 

 

A woman posts about another woman being accosted in the street and the usual suSpects attack her because of her feelings must be one of these freedoms you hold so highly.

 

Nothing like a bit of over dramatizing........She was simply asked what she would done if she was asked instead of the unknown mystery Muslim

 

You have something in common with the police who arrested that man

[desertbred 5,490]

 

 

 

A woman posts about another woman being accosted in the street and the usual suSpects attack her because of her feelings must be one of these freedoms you hold so highly.

 

Nothing like a bit of over dramatizing........She was simply asked what she would done if she was asked instead of the unknown mystery Muslim

 

You have something in common with the police who arrested that man

 

Extract from your post numpty "" Are you a Muslim???

"If not why would the man be lucky he didn't ask you a simple question " What a clown you are everthing is islam related in your microscopic world, my dogs are more intelligent.

[jacknife 2,005]

What is wrong with asking if she was muslim????

 

If she'd said yes then I could of understood why she would be so annoyed at the question

 

Why would a non muslim be so annoyed at being asked what they thought of the Brussels attack

 

Simple questions not an attack as you would have everyone believe plus i wasn't even aware she was a women till she said so

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

I was having a discussion with a mate yesterday about the bombings, his brother was there who is a serving police officer.

Anyway, the discussion turned to problems in this country with terrorists etc and how people feel about Muslims in general.

It was pointed out by this copper that "racial crimes" are deemed one of the highest priorities by the police, it far outranks other crimes like car theft or other thefts and any reported racial crime is looked at, at the highest level.

This is a directive straight from the government.

He also pointed out that racial crimes include verbal abuse.

So, whilst your car is being stolen, no copper will turn up because an immigrant down the road feels that someone might of racially offended them.

What If you told them it was a black car you had?

What if your black car was stolen by a black man ?

[forest of dean redneck 12,022]

 

I was having a discussion with a mate yesterday about the bombings, his brother was there who is a serving police officer.

Anyway, the discussion turned to problems in this country with terrorists etc and how people feel about Muslims in general.

It was pointed out by this copper that "racial crimes" are deemed one of the highest priorities by the police, it far outranks other crimes like car theft or other thefts and any reported racial crime is looked at, at the highest level.

This is a directive straight from the government.

He also pointed out that racial crimes include verbal abuse.

So, whilst your car is being stolen, no copper will turn up because an immigrant down the road feels that someone might of racially offended them.

What If you told them it was a black car you had?

Or a black Japanese car?