On 14 Mar 2014 at 8:36am Boris wrote:
12 people from Title were arrested for inciting religious and racial hatred.
Ed commented " the process of law won out and nobody suffered more than an inconvenience in the long run"
SQ commented " Nothing actually happened', it's a great example of why these laws work"
Because of this law that both of you so endorse these 12 people were as I've all ready stated, staring down the barrel at a long stretch in prison . Imagine what those poor people would have been going through over many many months and I know one of them lost their job over it. If the judge had come to his decision a couple of weeks after their arrest I might have more sympathy with your comment but to use the word inconvenience and to say nothing really happened belittles the situation to nothing more than a telling off.
The reason I keep using the NO POPERY and Firle 12 is because they are good examples of how your censoring laws could and have effected us locally.
Intrigued, paedophiles all ready have the same freedom of expression as we do.
I am now going to draw a line under this debate ad we seem to be going round in circles, we'll have to agree to disagree, Many thanks to SQ and Ed, it was a good one and I enjoyed it, by the way Ed I'm trying to be a troll I just have a different opinion to you.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 10:45am Intrigued wrote:
LOL. When you are completely busted, pretend that you are right and claim that everyone else is wrong. Sounds just like a rather dim local politician I know.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 1:21pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I wasn't aware that the case of the Firle 12 ever came before a judge, Boris. I didn't think charges were ever brought.
If, as I think is the case, the investigation found there was no case to answer then that shows that free speech is adequately protected by the laws on incitement and we have nothing to worry about.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 2:35pm Southover Queen wrote:
It wasn't, ACT, which is why I said "nothing happened". What did happen was that the papers were sent off from the police to the CPS who eventually decided against charging anyone let alone proceeding to prosecution, although as far as I can tell from press reports that wasn't until July which is certainly a long time.
Of course the No Popery banner has spanned Cliffe High St proudly and without incident for many years, so I hardly think that's a great example of free speech being compromised either. In fact, both of Boris' examples seem to make the opposite point very firmly...
On 14 Mar 2014 at 3:54pm Employer wrote:
Someone might also like to explain to Boris that you can't legitimately lose your job for not being charged with anything. There will be another reason, if that is indeed what happened. These kind of evidence-less statements are exactly what Stewart Lee was referring to on his show the other night with "you will get thrown in jail just for saying you are English" He even got the UKIPS detail right.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 7:04pm Faithful unto death wrote:
Far be it for me to back Boris up but it's not about the fact that the CPS dropped the case it's about the Police having to arrest them in the first place under this Big Brother law that was wrong. Lets be honest the CPS could easily have put a case together against them over this but clearly decided against it because of the up roar it would have caused.
Southover Queen, in an earlier post you say that law is required in order to prevent irrational prejudice and bigotry. Well like it or not, a very high percentage of Catholics would consider said banner to be a form of bigotry. Boris has cleverly got you here because the more that you try and talk your way out of it with your " well it's a tradition and isn't meant to offend there for it's ok" kind of banter the more you are making a mockery of your whole argument. You can't pick and choose when something is or isn't bigotry when the law is involved hence the Police having to arrest Firle.
Me thinks that like many on this forum you are a hypocrite.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 7:47pm Southover Queen wrote:
The point is that unless someone is offended or believes the banner to be capable of inciting religious hatred then there is no offence. Clearly no-one is, because it is universally understood to be an historic reference to the Marian persecutions and the Protestant martyrs.
If Catholics did consider the banner to be so offensive then presumably they'd have reported it to the police. Either they haven't done so, or the police have told them to go away: either way, the law would appear not to be interested in the slightest in the banner. And that suggests that the law is not preventing anyone in Cliffe Bonfire Society continuing to display it. Doesn't it? I'm not picking and choosing: people aren't reporting it and the police aren't taking action, so the law isn't being invoked. It isn't offensive, plain and simple.
Boris managed to conduct his argument without random insults, and calling me a hypocrite is just that.
On 14 Mar 2014 at 9:34pm Ed Can Do wrote:
As a final matter of interest Boris, are you yourself a member of Firle or Cliffe Bonfire societies and are you a catholic? I know someone very well who is all three and has never really been worried about oppressive censorship laws or a banner decrying a historical figure. Just saying...
On 14 Mar 2014 at 9:44pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The police had little choice in the Firle matter once a complaint had been made FUD. They were obliged to investigate, there was a prima facie case and that's why people were arrested and questioned. They (quite rightly) can't pick and choose which offences they investigate.
The outcome of that investigation was that no offence had been committed, so the law hadn't restricted anyone's freedom of speech in that respect.
Ditto the Cliffe banner - it is widelu known about, it goes up every year without any problems, so clearly is not illegal.
On 15 Mar 2014 at 12:29am Intrigued wrote:
'Would ' is not the same as 'have'
Just the kind of mistake Boris would make...
On 15 Mar 2014 at 6:59am Tony Pollybee wrote:
I've all ways found it very odd that so called modern progressives are involved in bonfire.
Bonfire is all about tradition in it's purest sense and the Bonfire societies rightly fight tooth and nail to preserve those traditions even though many of them would be considered unacceptable in this politically correct and health and safety obsessed country.
On 15 Mar 2014 at 8:04am Southover Queen wrote:
"many of them would be considered unacceptable in this politically correct and health and safety obsessed country."
I have no idea what this has to do with "modern progressives" or their absent antipathy to Bonfire.
These "modern progressives" don't seem to be campaigning to have it closed down, do they? In fact, as already noted, quite a lot of these mythical creatures seem to be heavily involved in Bonfire and in preserving those traditions.
All the examples raised seem to prove the exact opposite of what you all want them to prove, in fact.
On 15 Mar 2014 at 10:16am Elf wrote:
I always find it odd that people moan about 'health and safety' and political correctness. Call me weird but I want to be safer, and I don't like people being derogatory to each other in a bullying and damaging way. Of course how those two sensible things are interpreted by people who don't understand them is a different matter. But I do notice that people who moan about stupid invented H&S stories in the tabloid, are often very keen on talking about H&S when they have an accident and want to blame someone else.
On 15 Mar 2014 at 11:28am discriminating wrote:
just google BBC 'Joshua Bonehill Paine' to read more about the rising star of the far right, and his campaign about a pub refusing to serve military. Sometime the truth about discrimination is not what it at first seems.
On 19 Mar 2014 at 1:09pm discriminated wrote:
Say SQ, didn't somebody say that you had published a load of xenophobic abuse on an internet forum you own?
On 19 Mar 2014 at 7:34pm Intriqued wrote:
only an idiot, who was causing a load of trouble. so please don't try and start that again. We have all been enjoying this general Forum being back to normal, without it being completely swamped obsessive comments about one individual
On 20 Mar 2014 at 2:38pm evidently wrote:
Well if you allow people to make numerous postings referring to somebody as a 'Mick' you are publishing xenophobic abuse so it would seem that this 'idiot' of whom you speak was correct.
On 28 Mar 2014 at 1:41pm Rusty wrote:
Evidently....you seem to have the same the same IP address as Bojo & Discriminated?